<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=192888919167017&amp;ev=PageView&amp;noscript=1">
Thursday, March 28, 2024
March 28, 2024

Linkedin Pinterest

In Our View: Booze Monopoly

Our state's policy is antiquated; ballot initiative might be the only solution

The Columbian
Published: April 20, 2010, 12:00am

Anytime the state of Washington mandates when and where you can buy a legal product, and how much you have to pay, consumers suffer an unfair penalty. And anytime the state hoards the gathering and distribution of that product out of some gigantic center in Seattle, the private sector suffers.

As absurd as all of that sounds, it’s happening — and has been for years — under our state’s antiquated Prohibition-era program. The negative impacts are more than just the $2 to $3 per bottle of wine in this state, compared with California. The worst impacts are philosophical, economic impracticalities. It’s simply wrong for the state to wield a dictatorial monopoly over the liquor industry, and it’s wrong to deny consumers the competitive benefits that only the private sector can provide.

The Columbian has long advocated that Washington join the more than 30 states that have open-market liquor distribution and sales, and instead focus only on liquor-law enforcement and education programs. Legislators typically hem and haw and flirt with the idea, but lack the courage to act. Now it appears voters might act for them. There are rumblings that an initiative on the Nov. 2 ballot could empower voters to privatize the state’s liquor distribution and sales. The source and identity of this action remains vague, and details likely will emerge in the next several days. But if this movement becomes a reality, it would signal an opportunity to yank Washington state out of the Dark Ages of liquor sales.

We have been skeptical and generally unsupportive of putting initiatives on statewide ballots, preferring instead to allow elected officials to perform the tasks for which they were elected and be held accountable in ensuing elections. But when politicians refuse to enact the public’s will, initiatives are an acceptable last resort. One great example quickly comes to mind. Washingtonians clearly wanted a statewide ban on smoking in public places, but legislators refused to act. So, in 2005, almost two-thirds of voters enacted such a ban. Doomsday prophecies failed to materialize, and nationwide momentum accelerated. Oregon followed suit. That’s the way initiatives should be used, and it would be best if the same thing happened in the liquor issue.

Did you know that our state mandates a minimum 10 percent markup when breweries and wineries sell to wholesalers? That another 10 percent markup is mandated when wholesalers sell to retailers? Such policies are downright despotic. And try explaining to the 600 or so small wineries in our state why a bottle of wine in our state has to cost $2 to $3 more than in competitive California.

This debate often centers around money. To that end, state auditor Brian Sonntag estimates that privatizing liquor distribution and sales could increase state revenue by as much as $350 million over the next five years. Gov. Chris Gregoire has questioned Sonntag’s advice, but still appears to be tolerant of moving in that direction. We believe money is not the main issue, although $350 million in a deficit-plagued state is nothing to ignore. The greater factor is common sense, letting private-sector competition wield its magic. The union representing liquor store clerks and assistant managers opposes such a change; that reveals a lot about the potential benefits that an open market could provide.

Even if it has to be mandated by an initiative, it’s time for the state to get out of the liquor business.

Loading...