Did you vote?

WatchPot · October 2010

I'm completing my ballot but I'm still not sure how to vote on I- 1100 and I- 1105. This is the most interesting an election has been for me in a long time.

Don't forget to fill out your ballots this weekend!

Ciaram22 · October 2010

I never got my ballot. But I will be voting no on both of those.

Maddimom · October 2010

I did vote! I wish they would stop calling me and coming to my door. LOL I voted no on both of them. I think it is fine how it is

MSTie24 · October 2010

Just replied on FBook, but I was a definite yes on 1100- the argument that it will cause more drunk driving or underage drinking is ridiculous. People who want to drink have plenty of ways to access it already. But if I need brandy or cognac to cook with (like for the awesome Steak Diane DH made tonight...mmm) and we realize we're out when the store's not open, we're hosed. Plus I'd like more affordable liquor (not that I drink much.) 1105 was a no for me, based on what I read about it and The Stranger's commentary.

WatchPot · October 2010

MSTie24:
Just replied on FBook, but I was a definite yes on 1100- the argument that it will cause more drunk driving or underage drinking is ridiculous. People who want to drink have plenty of ways to access it already. .

And our state made national news becuase of some under age kids and a drinking party so I don't buy that arguement.

I was with the stranger till I read Jill's point on FB: Now I'm more confused.

WatchPot · October 2010

Also; what if they both pass? I think it's too complicated from what you read in the voters guide. It's too hard to find the differences.

Nancy_Drew · October 2010

They were no's for us. They are sponsored by Costco since Costco wants to be able to purchase liquor and wine at discount prices and right now in Wa state, it is all regulated by the gvmt and COD for all liquor. Dh is in the wine biz, and for him, working as distributor representing the small wineries, they (the wineries) will not be able to compete with the big guys who can discount heavily and sell to places like Costco. (in a nutshell here) So for us, since it's his job, we voted NO!

Ciaram22 · October 2010

Safeway has also spent a large chunk of money in getting I-1100 passed. We have been asked to hand out fliers to people to vote yes on I-1100. I don't like the idea that we will have to sell it. Our store gets enough teenagers trying to steal alcohol as it is I really don't want to add hard liquor into the mix.

~Lynchie~ · October 2010

You're supposed to vote YES on those!!! =P Especially on i-1100, I'm going to vote yes on both though just because I really want one of them to pass!!

When I moved back here from Nebraska (no state run liquor stores) I was in a serious state of sticker shock at how much more expensive hard alcohol was here! I can't wait for it to change (hopefully) and I am pretty confident that if the other 32 states can handle it, we can to.

(also Dh and I would appreciate it if you would help dh keep his job and vote NO on I-1082 tyvm )

CinemaGoddess · October 2010

Nancy_Drew:
They were no's for us. They are sponsored by Costco since Costco wants to be able to purchase liquor and wine at discount prices and right now in Wa state, it is all regulated by the gvmt and COD for all liquor. Dh is in the wine biz, and for him, working as distributor representing the small wineries, they (the wineries) will not be able to compete with the big guys who can discount heavily and sell to places like Costco. (in a nutshell here) So for us, since it's his job, we voted NO!

This is why we voted no, except for the part about DH beng in the biz. Stick out tongue We didn't like the idea that Costco was behind the whole thing.

I'm also not voting for either Murray or Rossi. My lack of vote is a protest against the only-the-main-two-parties-are-being-represented thing. Considering the democrats and republicans are basically the same party right now, I don't believe that my vote will count for anything other than just going through the motions.

ChubbyCheekiesMom · October 2010

We voted YES on both 1100 1105 and mailed them in 2 days ago.

From how I read it, 1100 will get rid of the 3 tier system (Which includes distributors) and 1105 will work with them.

Until this election I didn't know that ALL (but like 3) liqueur stores in the state of WA were state run. And have a HUGE mark up.

I also don't by the whole "This will kill more teens because it's more readily available" those kids can already buy alcohol at these places just not liqueur.

iHeartHimMore · October 2010

ChubbyCheekiesMom:
Until this election I didn't know that ALL (but like 3) liqueur stores in the state of WA were state run. And have a HUGE mark up.

By law, all liquor stores are state run right now. And the huge mark up is comprised of taxes that are disseminated to every city and county in the state. (You can see an exact breakdown of how much went to each place here - https://liq.wa.gov/releases/where-your-liquor-money-goes.aspx)

ChubbyCheekiesMom:
I also don't by the whole "This will kill more teens because it's more readily available" those kids can already buy alcohol at these places just not liqueur.

It is widely proven that government run liquor stores have far better control over who buys from them than grocery stores, gas stations and mini marts. And much of the tax money that the state would no longer be collecting would come out of budgets for essential programs like police and fire. So, adding more booze to the mix, removing controls, and funding fewer people and programs to deal with the outcome? Potentially disastrous if you ask me.

Here's a pretty good article on the likely impact: https://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013277083_liquorboard28.html

Sorry to sound all soap-boxy. But I've researched this pretty thoroughly because I was *really* torn. Personally, I would benefit greatly from cheaper liquor (I'm a bar owner, for those who don't know). I just couldn't in good conscience vote against what I perceive as the greater good.

iHeartHimMore · October 2010

oh, and...

~Lynchie~:
(also Dh and I would appreciate it if you would help dh keep his job and vote NO on I-1082 tyvm )

Done. Yes

ChubbyCheekiesMom · October 2010

iHeartHimMore:
ChubbyCheekiesMom:
Until this election I didn't know that ALL (but like 3) liqueur stores in the state of WA were state run. And have a HUGE mark up.
By law, all liquor stores are state run right now. And the huge mark up is comprised of taxes that are disseminated to every city and county in the state. (You can see an exact breakdown of how much went to each place here - https://liq.wa.gov/releases/where-your-liquor-money-goes.aspx)
ChubbyCheekiesMom:
I also don't by the whole "This will kill more teens because it's more readily available" those kids can already buy alcohol at these places just not liqueur.
It is widely proven that government run liquor stores have far better control over who buys from them than grocery stores, gas stations and mini marts. And much of the tax money that the state would no longer be collecting would come out of budgets for essential programs like police and fire. So, adding more booze to the mix, removing controls, and funding fewer people and programs to deal with the outcome? Potentially disastrous if you ask me.
Here's a pretty good article on the likely impact: https://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013277083_liquorboard28.html
Sorry to sound all soap-boxy. But I've researched this pretty thoroughly because I was *really* torn. Personally, I would benefit greatly from cheaper liquor (I'm a bar owner, for those who don't know). I just couldn't in good conscience vote against what I perceive as the greater good.

Thanks for the info, I too did some research my H is the one that told me that there are a few private stores one being in Mukilteo, I don't know if that is true.

But it doesn't matter now, I already voted. I don't believe the state should monopolize something like liquor but that is just my opinion. Our state needs to have harsher laws for DUIs, under age drinking and so fourth. They also need harsher laws on store employees that sell to minors. This of course is just my opinion.

keri1013 · October 2010

iHeartHimMore:
ChubbyCheekiesMom:
Until this election I didn't know that ALL (but like 3) liqueur stores in the state of WA were state run. And have a HUGE mark up.
By law, all liquor stores are state run right now. And the huge mark up is comprised of taxes that are disseminated to every city and county in the state. (You can see an exact breakdown of how much went to each place here - https://liq.wa.gov/releases/where-your-liquor-money-goes.aspx)
ChubbyCheekiesMom:
I also don't by the whole "This will kill more teens because it's more readily available" those kids can already buy alcohol at these places just not liqueur.
It is widely proven that government run liquor stores have far better control over who buys from them than grocery stores, gas stations and mini marts. And much of the tax money that the state would no longer be collecting would come out of budgets for essential programs like police and fire. So, adding more booze to the mix, removing controls, and funding fewer people and programs to deal with the outcome? Potentially disastrous if you ask me.
Here's a pretty good article on the likely impact: https://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013277083_liquorboard28.html
Sorry to sound all soap-boxy. But I've researched this pretty thoroughly because I was *really* torn. Personally, I would benefit greatly from cheaper liquor (I'm a bar owner, for those who don't know). I just couldn't in good conscience vote against what I perceive as the greater good.

Ditto all of this. Well, except I'm not a bar owner. Stick out tongue Also, our state Liquor Control Board has already reduced staffing with all the state budget cuts that are happening, and has had to cut back on the number of alcohol compliance checks that they do. I have talked with guys I know who work there, and they don't anticipate things looking any better this coming year, so I don't foresee any additional retail checks happening. And I know at the county health department where I work, we are waiting to hear what funding we will get from the county this year, and they are waiting to see if these initiatives pass, because if they do, county funding will be cut. It will mostly come from police and fire but I'm guessing they'd take some from public health too.

And Lynchie, I wasn't decided how to vote on 1082, but I'm all for saving your DH's job, so I will vote no!

keri1013 · October 2010

WatchPot:
Also; what if they both pass? I think it's too complicated from what you read in the voters guide. It's too hard to find the differences.

This is unclear. I have heard that Liquor Control Board at the state level is unsure how that would work and thinks it would likely mean months of court battles to figure it all out, which of course would cost us more money.

WatchPot · October 2010

ChubbyCheekiesMom:
iHeartHimMore:

ChubbyCheekiesMom:
Until this election I didn't know that ALL (but like 3) liqueur stores in the state of WA were state run. And have a HUGE mark up.

By law, all liquor stores are state run right now. And the huge mark up is comprised of taxes that are disseminated to every city and county in the state. (You can see an exact breakdown of how much went to each place here - https://liq.wa.gov/releases/where-your-liquor-money-goes.aspx)

ChubbyCheekiesMom:
I also don't by the whole "This will kill more teens because it's more readily available" those kids can already buy alcohol at these places just not liqueur.

It is widely proven that government run liquor stores have far better control over who buys from them than grocery stores, gas stations and mini marts. And much of the tax money that the state would no longer be collecting would come out of budgets for essential programs like police and fire. So, adding more booze to the mix, removing controls, and funding fewer people and programs to deal with the outcome? Potentially disastrous if you ask me.

Here's a pretty good article on the likely impact: https://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013277083_liquorboard28.html

Sorry to sound all soap-boxy. But I've researched this pretty thoroughly because I was *really* torn. Personally, I would benefit greatly from cheaper liquor (I'm a bar owner, for those who don't know). I just couldn't in good conscience vote against what I perceive as the greater good.

Thanks for the info, I too did some research my H is the one that told me that there are a few private stores one being in Mukilteo, I don't know if that is true.

But it doesn't matter now, I already voted. I don't believe the state should monopolize something like liquor but that is just my opinion. Our state needs to have harsher laws for DUIs, under age drinking and so fourth. They also need harsher laws on store employees that sell to minors. This of course is just my opinion.

Indian reservations can sell liquor outside of the state run stores and they don't have the mark up either. So this is true. But there are no private liquor stores.

greenmtbride · October 2010

cinema_goddess:
Nancy_Drew:
They were no's for us. They are sponsored by Costco since Costco wants to be able to purchase liquor and wine at discount prices and right now in Wa state, it is all regulated by the gvmt and COD for all liquor. Dh is in the wine biz, and for him, working as distributor representing the small wineries, they (the wineries) will not be able to compete with the big guys who can discount heavily and sell to places like Costco. (in a nutshell here) So for us, since it's his job, we voted NO!

This is why we voted no, except for the part about DH beng in the biz. We didn't like the idea that Costco was behind the whole thing.

I'm also not voting for either Murray or Rossi. My lack of vote is a protest against the only-the-main-two-parties-are-being-represented thing. Considering the democrats and republicans are basically the same party right now, I don't believe that my vote will count for anything other than just going through the motions.

I'm really surprised to hear you feel this way!! I'm not in love with either of these candidates, but I think voting one way or another will make a significant impact this year.

preston18 · October 2010

keri1013:
WatchPot:
Also; what if they both pass? I think it's too complicated from what you read in the voters guide. It's too hard to find the differences.
This is unclear. I have heard that Liquor Control Board at the state level is unsure how that would work and thinks it would likely mean months of court battles to figure it all out, which of course would cost us more money.

And this is why I voted yes on one and not the other.

I wish I could be as noble as IHHM and take one for the greater good, but I'm from CA and I like my Costco booze! I've been here 9 years and I've only been in a state run liquor store a few times because my friends and I have a mini cartel going each time one of us heads south. I also figured other states survive with private liquor sales, WA can too.

iHeartHimMore · October 2010

Don't hate. ;-) I really wasn't trying to sound holier-than-thou. And I really, really understand the desire for cheaper booze. That's why I was so torn.

CinemaGoddess · October 2010

greenmtbride:
cinema_goddess:

Nancy_Drew:
They were no's for us. They are sponsored by Costco since Costco wants to be able to purchase liquor and wine at discount prices and right now in Wa state, it is all regulated by the gvmt and COD for all liquor. Dh is in the wine biz, and for him, working as distributor representing the small wineries, they (the wineries) will not be able to compete with the big guys who can discount heavily and sell to places like Costco. (in a nutshell here) So for us, since it's his job, we voted NO!

This is why we voted no, except for the part about DH beng in the biz. We didn't like the idea that Costco was behind the whole thing.

I'm also not voting for either Murray or Rossi. My lack of vote is a protest against the only-the-main-two-parties-are-being-represented thing. Considering the democrats and republicans are basically the same party right now, I don't believe that my vote will count for anything other than just going through the motions.

I'm really surprised to hear you feel this way!! I'm not in love with either of these candidates, but I think voting one way or another will make a significant impact this year.

See, I don't. I just don't see that much political difference between Murray and Rossi and neither of them have wowed me with their political platform. Murray's been in the game too long and I don't agree with much of her voting record and Rossi just seems to want it too much and for the wrong reasons.

I'm also superpizzed at the limit of the two parties on the ballot. We can write in a vote, but I think that keeping only the D's and R's on the ballot will hurt the voting process much more than it will help it. I'd much rather vote for someone who is focused on actual political change than someone who is thinking about winning the next election 5 minutes after winning this one.

Lastly, I feel that both the D's and the R's are completely ignoring a major chunk of the population. I would be much more inclined to vote for someone who at least mentions the housing crisis and how it relates to the middle-class folks who did everything right and are still underwater and stuck because they can neither refinance nor move. ::cough::DHandI::cough:: I feel like both political parties are focusing on the super rich and the super poor and forgetting about the rest of us.

ChubbyCheekiesMom · October 2010

iHeartHimMore:
Don't hate. ;-) I really wasn't trying to sound holier-than-thou. And I really, really understand the desire for cheaper booze. That's why I was so torn.

I'm not hating, just giving my opinion. You gave yours I felt I could give mine! Big Smile

ETA: And I didn't vote just for the desire of cheaper booze, I actually rarely drink. I just don't see the need for our government to control and tax everything.

iHeartHimMore · October 2010

ChubbyCheekiesMom:
iHeartHimMore:
Don't hate. ;-) I really wasn't trying to sound holier-than-thou. And I really, really understand the desire for cheaper booze. That's why I was so torn.
I'm not hating, just giving my opinion. You gave yours I felt I could give mine!
ETA: And I didn't vote just for the desire of cheaper booze, I actually rarely drink. I just don't see the need for our government to control and tax everything.

Lol - that comment wasn't meant for you. No worries.

FWIW, I don't believe the government should be in the liquor business either. I just don't think these particular initiatives are a good enough way to change the system.

Did you vote?

Re: Did you vote?

Choose Another Board

Search Boards