THE CLAIMS
You’ve seen the ads. Each side seems to have its own stable of firefighters, police and sheriffs.
A “Yes” firefighter says “1183 dedicates millions in new revenue for police, fire and emergency services statewide” and a police officer says it “strengthens enforcement.”
But a “No” firefighter says “1183 doesn’t add a single penny or a single new officer for increased enforcement, even though we’ll have four times as many liquor stores, dramatically increasing teen access to hard liquor.”
One of those must be wrong.
Then there’s the dispute between the firefighter who says “1183 expands hard liquor sales to almost 1,000 mini-marts,” and the former sheriff (Dale Brandland of Whatcom County, also a former state senator) who says it “prevents liquor sales at gas stations, mini-marts and convenience stores.”
Another sheriff, Cowlitz County’s Mark Nelson, counters: “Problem drinking could increase as much as 48 percent.”
THE FACTS
Mini-marts: First, let’s get the minimarts out of the way. It’s hardly as clear-cut as it’s portrayed.
The initiative has a 10,000-square-foot requirement for stores wanting to sell liquor. There is an exception: The state Liquor Control Board can approve smaller stores in areas with no big ones. The size of those areas isn’t defined.
So the opposition campaign invented a definition, estimating stores will be allowed every one mile in cities or five miles in the country: 929 total stores.
The “Yes” campaign isn’t strictly correct either when it says it “prevents” sales, because there will be some.
The “No” ads say, correctly, that the number of stores selling liquor will increase. The governor’s budget office estimates 1,428 stores will sell liquor, up from 328 stores now. Some studies tie the number of alcohol-selling outlets in an area to bad effects such as traffic crashes and assaults.
Enforcement: The expansion of sales raises questions about whether enforcement of liquor laws will go up to match. The liquor board now has about 50 officers out making sure businesses don’t sell to teens or violate other alcohol laws.
The budget office predicts I-1183 will bring in at least $400 million for state and local governments over six years, mostly though a pair of new fees. The biggest share of the revenue goes to the state general fund, which is used for all kinds of spending.
The Legislature could send some of the new money to the liquor board for more officers. And local governments might use some for, say, more drunken-driving patrols. But at a time when strapped governments are cutting payrolls and throwing people off the rolls of social programs, none of that is a sure thing.
So the “Yes” campaign’s claim that it “strengthens enforcement” goes too far.
More accurate is supporters’ claim that “police, fire and emergency services” will get money. The initiative requires local governments to spend at least $10 million of the new revenue on public safety.
Problem drinking: With more places to buy liquor and with the private sector getting involved, will Washingtonians drink more? Will kids get booze more easily?
State stores do better than private stores in turning away underage buyers. The liquor board says its underage stings in 2010 found private sellers following the law 80.5 percent of the time, while state stores’ compliance rate was 94.3 percent.
But included in the private rate are bars and restaurants that already can sell hard liquor and the “mini-marts” that mostly won’t add liquor.
So how does Washington compare to states with private systems? There are plenty to look at: Just 18 states have a state-run system, and just 11 of those control retail sales, according to the National Alcohol Beverage Control Association.
According to federal surveys, states that sell alcohol directly are all over the map for underage drinking. New Hampshire, Vermont have high rates of underage drinking; Idaho, Utah and North Carolina are among the lowest.
Underage Washingtonians are slightly more likely than average young Americans to say they have had a drink recently – but somebody else probably bought it for them. The same surveys show young Washington drinkers are among the least likely to say they bought the last booze they drank.
Washington ranks about in the middle of the 50 states in liquor consumption. It even has slightly higher consumption than California, with its private liquor system and greater concentration of stores. California also reports less underage drinking than Washington.
Opponents predict a 48 percent increase in “problem drinking.” That comes from a federal task force that compiled studies of what happened after government privatized or took over alcohol sales in various states, Canadian provinces and European countries. The task force recommended against privatization after noting that consumption of privatized beverages saw a median increase of 48 percent across all studies.
That’s not a direct measure of “problem drinking,” but the task force says excessive drinking tends to line up with overall drinking. Still, it could be misleading. Most of the states and provinces privatized only wine. The laws in Finland and Sweden involved beer.
Hard liquor was mostly not studied. The ones that did study hard liquor sales – a 1987 privatization in Iowa – split over whether it increased drinking
THE BOTTOM LINE
There is no evidence that drinking skyrockets after privatization of hard liquor. Still, states with private sales tend to report more drinking. The tie to underage drinking is less clear, and opponents’ predictions of such an increase are undermined by the number of stores those predictions are based on, which opponents made up.
Whatever the effects, government might counter them with its 1183’s promised revenue – but that money isn’t specifically set aside for liquor-law enforcement, as supporters imply.
