I'm sad to say that one of the issues in WA State didn't go

[gateley]

well today. It was for privatizing liquor sales. It was up for a vote previously and was defeated, this time Costco spent $20 MILLION to get it passed and the money won. :(

I don't know how many employees WA State employs in its liquor stores, but I sincerely doubt the retailers will be adding them to their payrolls.

I'm so very happy at all the good results from the other States, and although this isn't a rights-issue, I'm very sad about this.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. I am sorry, my dear gateley...

:hug:

[gateley]

4. Awwww, thank you Peggy. I feel better now.

:pals:

[Hutzpa]

2. Move to Calif and you'll get some weed to

compensate you.

:hide:

[Evergreen Emerald]

3. me too

I am disappointed in our citizenry.

[gateley]

5. Really pisses me off, especially seeing some of the surprising

results from elsewhere. Who'd have thought that Haley Barbour-loving Mississippi would vote as they did? Everywhere else (mostly, except VA) people obviously paid attention and got involved. I really expected more from our State -- disappointed is the word.

[Citizen Worker]

6. Now, the well paid state jobs with benefits and a pension will soon be gone. A damn shame. I am

once again disappointed in my fellow Washingtonians who couldn't see the forest for the trees. We refused to tax the rich after an initiative drive in 2010. And now this. Money wins again.

[gateley]

7. I know. Sad, sad. nt

[Evergreen Emerald]

9. its true...and the increase in revenue claimed by the proponents

is due to a sales tax increase. I researched the issue when we started getting competing information from both the pro and con camps. It is not a positive step for Washington.

[eridani]

8. I'm seriously disgusted as well

Fuck Costco.

[marlakay]

10. It wasn't a right or left issue

And there was more to it...many of the small towns like the one I live in have no Costco so that doesn't apply. It means our local grocery store which has better hours would sell it.

The small local store had hardly any choice at all. I would have to go to Seattle or Spokane to get certain products.

I actually saw more ads against it than for it so I wouldn't say Costco won this. I was going to vote no and a fellow liberal talked me into voting yes.

[gateley]

11. I'm sure there are positive benefits, like you cite about your

town, but I think that's less important (no offense) than the bigger picture which I interpret as big business winning again. Even though Costco doesn't have a store in your town, they'll do VERY well by this in all their locations elsewhere in the State. And I can't help but feel that the $20M Costco spent (In know Trader Joe's and others were supporting this, too) was only because of the profits they'd reap. Some small stores will be able to sell it now which will help them, but they won't be snapping up the displaced State workers. I think more people will be hurt by this than benefit, and of course the "top 1%" will reap the greatest.

[Matariki]

12. Why? I don't think it's such a bad thing.

We'll be able to buy alcohol at the grocery store instead of a place with limited hours that tends to make the shopping experience feel vaguely criminal.

From the Seattle Times:

The state budgeting office figures the number of outlets selling liquor will jump from 328 to 1,428. It also expects the change to generate an average of $80 million more in annual revenue for the state and local governments over the next six years.

[BoWanZi]

13. Agreed. State controlled liquor sales are an antiquated remment of days long gone

[Matariki]

15. Interesting you should say that.

I was just looking at this 1933 newspaper article listing the states that lifted the ban on prohibition. That was when the establishment of 'state stores' seems to have occurred.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=QstPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=o1QDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1614,2356257

[Spirochete]

14. Yeah, I voted against it too

because of the lost state jobs.