- About Us
- Local Savings
- Green Editions
- Legal Notices
- Weekly Ads
Privatized liquor: Just say no | Federal Way letters
Some retail establishments have supported and even allowed signature gathering on their properties.
I believe this is very short sighted and not in the interest of the public. This state has one of the best records on underage drinking with the present state liquor sales. Why would the public want this removed to private establishments who are looking only to increase profits? This is not to restrict the sale of liquor; it is intended to increase the sale to more people. Who would that be? The only answer is underage consumption. For under the present state liquor store law, anyone who is entitled to purchase liquor may do so.
What other reason could there be? The distribution of liquor, which is also controlled by the state at present. Now the state makes use of the large purchasing power of the entire state to obtain the lowest prices from distillers. Can Safeway, Costco or other retailers obtain the same price discounts? Would this result in higher prices and profits for these retailers? Would the public see lower prices? No, the state would lose hundreds of good paying jobs with benefits while the retailers continued to use the lowest possible employee costs. Will the state revenue from the sale of liquor remain the same? No! It will decrease by a large amount. To replace the income the state gets from the sale of liquor at present, the initiatives want to pay a $1,000 or $2,000 permit fee. I do not believe these permit fees will replace the loss to the state and the public.
I urge all voters to look for themselves and refuse to sign any liquor initiatives.
Larry L. Jackson, Federal Way