Let's get this out in the open right now: I don't think either of the liquor privatization initiatives (I-1100, I-1105) are very good. Both of them are open-ended and loosely drafted (almost like rush jobs), but they do directly address a number of concerns - mainly Washington's budget woes and ways to get out of it.

Balking year after year on a whole host of issues, the Washington State Legislature has finally forced this particular question to the people. This, of course, seems to be their M.O. on any issue deemed too sensitive to actually do anything about, lest it hurt their chances for re-election.

Let's break them down.

Initiatives 1100 and 1105 would both force the state out of the liquor business, which is not an essential government function, other than controlling all the liquor in the state, collecting all the revenues, and enforcing its proper consumption along the guidelines of the law.

1100, which has received almost half of its monetary contributions from Costco, would peel back some existing laws concerning distribution, wholesale discounts by purchasing volume, and would allow purchasing on credit, all of which is currently illegal. It would leave the current tax structure in place, grant permits only to sellers currently in good status with the liquor board for around $1000 a pop, and make enforcement priority number one.

1105 would do roughly the same thing, but also require the legislature to restructure the revenue stream based on recommendations from the Liquor Board. It would force liquidation of assets and stock associated to Liquor Control from the state, and take roughly six percent of gross sales from all resellers for the first five years. It would also require an annual fee in addition to the B&O tax.

When you start breaking down the numbers though, it gets very confusing from both sides.

The opposition to both initiatives claims they would drive revenues down and increase lawlessness associated alcohol tenfold. This opposition cites numbers from the Office of Financial Management, saying revenue streams would be nearly cut in half across the board for both state and local municipalities, with the state down $76 million to $85 million and local down $180 million to $192 million total.

The proponents claim it will de-monopolize the "Prohibition-era" standards set up in Washington, and promote competition in an untapped marketplace. The current mark-up by the state on liquor is 51.9%. Costco says, on average, its mark-up is 15% in states where they're allowed to sling booze.

Both initiatives will also throw into limbo around 800 jobs for state employees. Proponents say only 80 of those jobs are used for enforcement of the current liquor laws, and the writing in 1105 specifically says the state is responsible for whether those folks are laid off, re-assigned, or re-trained - perhaps in the field of liquor code enforcement.

Opponents claim the initiatives, specifically 1100, will only be a boon for "Big Business" (no, not Jared & Cody), and will probably drive mom and pops out of business, kill small breweries and wineries, and set up the distinct possibility of maybe 5000 new liquor stores on every corner.

My main beef with the opposition is simple: All of the arguments against these initiatives are based on PROBABILITY, NOT FACT. Every argument I've found is based on possibility, not concrete evidence, and when juxtaposed against the numbers presented in multiple reports from the "Yes" side, their argument doesn't hold up. 

Washington State Auditor Brian Sonntag released a report in 2009 stating privatization of the liquor industry could boost revenues by $350 million in a five-year span in our state. 1105 REQUIRES the legislature to work to increase the revenue stream by AT LEAST $100 million dollars in the first five years.

As someone who has lived in California and Arizona, both states with privatized liquor sales, I haven't noticed anything different from Washington's approach to theirs, other than the ease of one-stop shopping.  I actually like being able to get a little pint nipper for my pocket, because it means I won't have to spend as much on the inflated drink prices at the bar if I can have a taste between venues on a pub crawl Friday or Saturday night, which is what many in our generation do. Any bar will tell you the weekend nights are their busiest shifts.

The opposition to these initiatives likes to paint the scenario of boozed-filled bar patrons all rushing in their cars to get handles of whiskey from the AM/PM before 2 a.m. Funny, that sounds exactly like what has happened since I turned 21 a decade ago, except it's always been for a case of beer or some bottles of wine. In my opinion, any drunk that can hold it together long enough to calculate when they have to stop drinking at the bar to make sure they have time to hit the gas station or grocery store for one last sixer deserves the right to maybe pick up a pint along with it.

In a state as fiscally strapped as ours, and where liquor sales are up 112% since 1997, are we fools to believe the hype? I, for one, felt a lot better buying handles of Maker's Mark for nearly $20 less than the liquor store when I went to Costco. It also made it fairly convenient to stay home and get sauced for a lot cheaper, keeping me out of the bars (fights, STDs) and off the road.

In Washington the government is both profiting from liquor's sale and responsible for its enforcement. Am I the only one who thinks this is a conflict of interest? No business ever set up with an ethical standard would allow this.

Thankfully, this is our government.

We tax cigarettes, which are just as bad for you as booze, but you can get them at any store with a resale permit. And, are cigarettes not just as legally culpable for their ramifications on others? Just look at all the second-hand smoke lawsuits that led to almost every state banning indoor smoking.

Ultimately, the responsibility for policing teen drinking lies with the parents, and not the state. The only difference in a high schooler shoulder-knocking at a Safeway for booze after this law takes effect will be their choice of consumable, not the ease of getting it. Anyone who was ever a teenager knows booze is never farther away than a well-stocked liquor cabinet in the den. 

As far as we're concerned here at El Vacio Moral, the arguments on these initiatives are still up in the air. But we can tell you this much: If we're going to continue crunching these numbers from our Voter's Guide, we're gonna need a fucking drink. So we better get out of the office, on the bus, and over to the liquor store before 6 p.m. when it closes for the weekend.

Owen Taylor is tired. Very tired. He's also the only hack Volcano editor Matt Driscoll knows crazy enough to take the job as political correspondent. Thankfully, he's got enough underworld connections to make it interesting. El Vacio Moral is Taylor's weekly court-ordered therapy session where he rants about his dwindling faith in the government to get anything right. You can find it here at weeklyvolcano.com on Fridays, definitely after noon. Taylor is also the mastermind behind fuckinghater.com, which is as brilliant as the name implies.