I-1183

mgoss228 · November 2011

Looks like it has passed.

Does this impact the way you'll be stocking your bar? Or your day-to-day life?

mgoss228 · November 2011

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back when (6 months ago) this wouldn't have affected the way I planned to serve booze at the reception because my venue didn't allow Hard-A to be served. And my reception was pretty long, and my friends got drunk enough on beer and wine.

This will make stocking our home bar a lot easier for parties and random GTGs with friends. Kirkland Signature booze is pretty good (I've bought it in stores in CA), and pretty cheap.

I'm happy this passed, I love taking any control/power away from the WA ST Liquor Control board. IMO, they are a bunch of corrupted wanksters.

chelsea1110 · November 2011

It won't effect how I stock the bar but I am happy on how it will effect the budget! Maybe now I can keep the liquor budget numbers low!

LGM22 · November 2011

I voted yes last year and voted yes again this year. We planned on having an open bar and this hasn't changed. NWR we're not big drinkers, but it was a bit of a pain in the butt when we would realize we had no booze for a specific drink we wanted and it was a Sunday or too late to go buy it. Coming from an area where booze is sold in stores it's far more convenient and I'm glad it's passed for that reason alone.

Personally I was a little surprised by the amount Costco put into the election, but given the amount of paper ads that filled our mailbox (and the things they said) I came to understand /why/ they had to. I don't begrudge the money involved in the election, though it does make me a little sad it had to be that way.

sparent2010 · November 2011

I voted yes both times. Closing the stores is going to save the state a lot of money and they are going to make a lot of money off of the licensing. Being able to buy from the distilleries will allow consumers to have a lower overall cost, and it will help out the smaller local producers.

Maybe the state can take the money they were paying the employees plus benefits and store costs and put it back into law enforcement and education.

There are many benefits that will come from I-1183 and we don't need to be enforcing prohibition era rules anymore.

Lastly, you know the tobacco cages Costco has for the stores that sell cigarettes? They will probably use that system for the alcohol purchases and hire some of those employees who are losing their jobs over this.

blgrout · November 2011

I voted yes both times as well, as I'm lazy and hate driving the extra 0.5 miles to the liquor store. lol. Kidding. Kind of.

Seriously though, my venue doesn't allow hard-A so it has no impact on stocking the bar for our wedding. But I'm excited that I can now run to my favorite local supermarket and/or Costco and buy booze, since I have a bad habit of remembering to visit the liquor store after they are closed.

LGM22 · November 2011

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/local-wedding-boards_washington-seattle_i-1183?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Local Wedding BoardsForum:104Discussion:8d15dc24-ee74-4dc9-88d2-697e690ee6a6Post:2e2fdbfc-0a60-4f31-b6fd-0738ce86659e">Re: I-1183</a>:
[QUOTE]It actually makes me sad that thousands of liquor store employees and the people who work to stock the stores are now out of jobs so we can get it a little cheaper and more conveniently. I voted no and I am not happy about the outcome. I didn't mind going to the liquor store. The fact that Costco put 22 million dollars into this makes me look at them in a much more negative light than before. <strong>This yes vote was bought by them and they did a good job doing it.</strong> There were plenty of reasons to vote no, <strong>but apparently convenience and saving a few dollars was the more appealing option</strong>. I would've spent the extra bucks for the booze, and I don't think people realize that the high WA State tax on the stuff is going to keep the cost high anyway.
Posted by phonehome[/QUOTE]

While I think there were certainly a good number of votes that were for this reason, I think that assuming that the majority of folks voted yes because of ad campaigns or because Costco 'bought' their vote is, well, presumptious. I know that I voted yes because of reading and researching last year before casting my vote. I didn't like the way the state ran (runs) things and that's why I voted yes last year. I still want the state out of the liquior business and that's why I voted yes again. While my yes vote gains a perk of more convenience, it was note the driving force behind it.

Politics is a trick subject and I think it becomes ugly when assumptions are made and cast out such as that. It's far better to engage in friendly discourse rather than just presume and be grumpy.

Sorry to be preachy.

firsttimersluck · November 2011

Originally I had voted no on the bill. Why? Because I did the reading. Their numbers didn't add up. It didn't outline for me enough, HOW it was really going to help the government gain so much more from this change. They also didn't have many restrictions on who can sell.

This time, I voted yes. I read the bill and all the nitty gritty details. The money adds up MUCH better this time, and the restrictions make more sense this go around.
I'm glad it passed, but it won't affect us quite honestly.
We buy from the NEX which is a military store that allows lowest prices and no sale tax. win-win for us. lol

sparent2010 · November 2011

Plus Costco is going to at least grant interviews to every person who loses their job over this. That can't yes to jobs for all of them but at least they are giving these people a chance to get another job.

fignewton219 · November 2011

I voted no. I get the convience thing, but my thought was its already some what easy enough for people under age to get alchol why make it even easier. But tha'ts my personal thing due to losing 3 frineds to underage drinking and driving. 1 was the underage drinker and 2 were hit by them.

firsttimersluck · November 2011

That's so awful wilcox

I'm sorry to hear that.
I definitely get the democrat view of keeping the gov't hold on alcohol, but I kinda feel like it's a double standard to have them have control of that but not cigs/tobacco. Logically speaking, it makes no sense and goes against our Capitalistic country. Emotionally, I definitely understand keeping a hold of the stuff.
(FTR I'm a total liberal.)

sparent2010 · November 2011

WC- That is terrible and really sad. But I still think that if kids want alcohol, drugs, sex or money they will find a way to get it. If one wanted alcohol in high school there was someone they would go see. Drugs is the same thing. Sex they will sneak out of the house and money they can steal. If they want it they can find a way to get it.

I lost a friend to driving on the wrong side of the road at 18 in 2 in the morning and at a rate of 125 mph. She is drunk and on drugs. It tore me up.

I-1183

Re: I-1183

Choose Another Board

Search Boards