Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Liquor measure faring better than Eyman initiative in latest survey

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Places » Washington Donate to DU
 
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-11 01:32 PM
Original message
Liquor measure faring better than Eyman initiative in latest survey
A new poll released today shows voters are leaning towards booting the state out of the business of selling hard liquor but are far less certain on whether to support Tim Eyman's latest ballot measure.

Those surveyed are much clearer on the issue of same-sex marriage: They like it.

Here is a summary of the results of the Washington Poll released this morning.

-Initiative 1183 is leading 50 percent to 43 percent with 7 percent undecided;
-Initiative 1125 is ahead 41 percent to 40 percent with 19 percent undecided;
-And legalizing same-sex marriage is supported by 55 percent and opposed by 38 percent.

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20111031/BLOG13/111039969#Liquor-measure-faring-better-than-Eyman-initiative-in-latest-survey
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
yewberry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-01-11 03:53 AM
Response to Original message
1. I just can't support 1183.
I was on the fence until I spoke to a local small vintner. He's convinced that 1183 will kill his small business. Also, I know much is made about getting the big, bad government out of liquor sales, but we make MONEY on liquor sales. How many people will lose their jobs?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
LisaM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-11-11 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. At least 900 people will lose their jobs.
And I doubt if the state will make more money with privatized sales. When has that ever worked?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-11-11 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. I found I couldn't *not* vote for it
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Yes, at not much more than minimum wage
Thanks so much for destroying 900 family wage jobs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-11-11 06:43 PM
Response to Original message
3. Personally, I reflexively vote against any proposal with Eyman's name on it
Edited on Fri Nov-11-11 06:49 PM by Euromutt
If it weren't unconstitutional to make a law to specifically affect one person, I think we'd be seeing a lot of ballot proposals that Eyman be banished from the state. I mean, if there's supposedly so much wrong with it, why doesn't he fuck off to Idaho or something? Or a better question would be why he doesn't just run for the legislature. But we can guess the answer to that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 06:34 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Places » Washington Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC