Liquor measure faring better than Eyman initiative in latest survey

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

A new poll released today shows voters are leaning towards booting the state out of the business of selling hard liquor but are far less certain on whether to support Tim Eyman's latest ballot measure.

Those surveyed are much clearer on the issue of same-sex marriage: They like it.

Here is a summary of the results of the Washington Poll released this morning.

-Initiative 1183 is leading 50 percent to 43 percent with 7 percent undecided;
-Initiative 1125 is ahead 41 percent to 40 percent with 19 percent undecided;
-And legalizing same-sex marriage is supported by 55 percent and opposed by 38 percent.

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20111031/BLOG13/111039969#Liquor-measure-faring-better-than-Eyman-initiative-in-latest-survey

[yewberry]

1. I just can't support 1183.

I was on the fence until I spoke to a local small vintner. He's convinced that 1183 will kill his small business. Also, I know much is made about getting the big, bad government out of liquor sales, but we make MONEY on liquor sales. How many people will lose their jobs?

[LisaM]

2. At least 900 people will lose their jobs.

And I doubt if the state will make more money with privatized sales. When has that ever worked?

[Euromutt]

4. I found I couldn't *not* vote for it

Not least because the arguments against it were all so bogus. The same people complaining about how 1183 restricted liquor sales to stores over 10,000 square feet were the ones complaining last year about how you'd be able to buy booze at every corner convenience store. The people complaining about how Costco was "buying the election" blithely ignored the fact that the No campaign was bankrolled largely by out-of-state distributors. And I really can't see what drawbacks privatizing liquor sales are going to impose on small craft brewers, vintners and distillers that weren't already there; I can walk into a BevMo in California and find damn near anything I want, whereas in Washington, I'd have to wait several weeks before the single bottle in the entire state finally arrived at the local store. And by giving retailers the option of cutting out the middleman distributor, they should be able to take the distributors' cut out of the price.

Moreover, as long as the state levies excise taxes on alcohol sales, the state will continue to make money. As for jobs, loosening the restrictions on who can sell liquor isn't going to result in fewer liquor stores. There are rumors that the aforementioned BevMo is looking into starting operations in Washington, and they're going to need experienced staff.

[eridani]

5. Yes, at not much more than minimum wage

Thanks so much for destroying 900 family wage jobs.

[Euromutt]

3. Personally, I reflexively vote against any proposal with Eyman's name on it

If it weren't unconstitutional to make a law to specifically affect one person, I think we'd be seeing a lot of ballot proposals that Eyman be banished from the state. I mean, if there's supposedly so much wrong with it, why doesn't he fuck off to Idaho or something? Or a better question would be why he doesn't just run for the legislature. But we can guess the answer to that.