Reply #4: I found I couldn't *not* vote for it

[Euromutt]

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.