When the first sentence of an article is factually inaccurate, it raises questions in readers' minds about what follows. Costco is based in Issaquah and has been for many, many years. A little fact checking goes a long way.

Can we dispense with the tea-bagger name-calling? It might get you high-fives at the caucus meetings, but the vast majority of us believe our civic discussions should be a bit more mature than what one might find on a middle-school playground.

A private company pushing an initiative specifically to benefit its own profits? Sounds fishy.

It seemed like a good idea to me until I saw the full page "Example Ad" in the Times and realized that we would be blitzed with an unending amount of similar ads in every medium. That alone is enough to prompt me to pass on this idea.

GregMcD is correct in that Costco is currently headquartered in Issaquah. It was founded in Kirkland, hence the "Kirkland Signature" brand — the likely source of the confusion.

I agree with BlueLight — let's call them Tea Partiers. Chris Vance doesn't use "the Democrat Party," at least not in these pages.

Jon — yes, it does make this look self-serving, but this is an idea whose time has long since come. Costco won't be the only beneficiary. And someone has to pay for campaign operations and signature gathering.

Ruffner — if it were all about the ads, I'd outlaw prescription medications!

It's not "all about COSCO"

Think "Northwest Grocery Association"
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2011962307_grocers27.html

So what if Costco stands to benefit if the measure is adopted? The state needs to slim down and focus on its core responsibilities, and selling booze is not one of them.

Thanks for the geography (and journalism) lesson in the comment, GregMcD. We made the fix to Issaquah from Kirkland.
- Joe Copeland

"A private company pushing an initiative specifically to benefit its own profits? Sounds fishy."

Like, say, indian tribes pushing for a smoking ban?

Dman, interesting piece.

'With other products, they can offer customers local or higher quality alternatives, but "a bottle of vodka is a bottle of vodka," said Jan Gee, president and chief executive of the Washington Food Industry Association, which represents independent grocers.'

"A bottle of vodka is a bottle of vodka"? I am no aficionado, but I do know the difference between Monarch, Smirnoff, and Belvedere.

A Monarch is a Mercury, and a Belvedere is a Plymouth.

But seriously, Mr. Sayer, what is so nefarious about a company pushing for a change in the law that would benefit it? Now, if they were pushing for a change in the law that would harm it, that would be cause concern, wouldn't it?

Yet another example of our state's initative process at work. For years the public has asked the state to allow liqour sales at groceries and other outlets only to be stymied by entrenched Olympia interests and a do-nothing legislature. I'd like to see a study to see is there more public drunkness or less public safety on a per capita basis in California then other states.

One argument the proponents of keeping the status quo and those who argue for tougher liqour laws to protect our youngins have never been able to adquately explain is why is the US the only industrial nation on earth that has a drinking age of 21? Every other nation, Australia, Germany, France even our good neighbor to the north has a lower drinking age. Canada 19, Australia 18. I dont see huge public safety issues there. You want to curb drinking or have better public safety, make drunk driving a felony and hefty funds like other nations.

The author's earlier (and since corrected) use of the dismissive epithet "Tea Bagger" and his unsubstantiated speculation that Tea Party supporters would "probably fight" against liquor privatization, suggest that he hasn't spent much time talking with Tea Party supporters. The Tea Party movement (TEA=Taxed Enough Already) is primarily about fiscal responsibility and limited government. That includes skepticism of nannyist government.

I know quite a few Tea Partiers and nearly all of the ones who were presented with a I-1100 petition signed it. A number of them are actively collecting signatures.

Honestly, I don't understand the point of supporting this petition drive unless it provides for drive-thru liquor sales as well as home delivery. Like most attempts at crafting laws and regulations, this one apparently doesn't put much effort thinking thru the problem and benefits to the consumer.

Hlongan and I are of similar minds. I moved from California in the late 1980s and seeing gallon jugs of vodka, scotch, gin, etc. at the Price Club before it became part of Costco was just an expansion of the long-time public sale of liquor in supermarkets.

As when I've visited other states, I find it very peculiar that these state-run liquor bureacracies exist. Everytime I go to New Jersey it makes our byzantine system look positively laissez-faire. You can't buy beer or wine there without visiting an out-of-the-way state liquor store. And don't get me started on the blue law states.

Long story short is this is LONG overdue here. I drink virtually no hard liquor so it matters little to my life style, but unless there is statistical evidence that on a proportionate basis more people die from alcoholism in California than elsewhere or that more liquor available equals more crime, then Washington needs to change its law. The current law is a relic of Prohibition.

It's time to end the state monopoly on liquor. It's not as if the 1930s version of prohibition cut back on alcohol consumption--that's merely a smokescreen to justify profits to add to the state coffers. It's business, and for the State of Washington, it's a huge money-making part of its business. So naturally the state is reluctant to give up control.

I recently read "The King of Vodka," a book about the rise and fall (and subsequent resurrection) of the Smirnov (original transcription from the Cyrillic) family and company fortunes. The tsarist regime executed a similar state-run monopoly that at first did reduce public drunkenness, but circumstances being what they were in pre-Revolutionary Russia, that did not last long. All it did at first was provide badly needed income (it helped finance Russia's WWI participation) and marginally improve standards for liquor production. As circumstances grew more dire in Russia, drunkenness actually became worse with the rise of more readily available (and cheaper) bootleg liquor.

We should all take a moment to view our current situation through the lens of history.

One further note: Please don't lump Smirnov vodka with the Monarchs of the liquor world. In blind taste tests, the triple-filtered Smirnov has repeatedly outperformed even the Belvederes of this world. The storied history of the company deserves more respect than that.

Nichka, I was lumping Smirnoff with Belvedere, not with Monarch :)

I'm so glad, Benjamin. You are clearly a man of intelligence--and taste!

The following comment was sent to the editor:

I find your reference to the warnings about Fetal Alcohol Syndrome as "bewailing" as offensive.

It is quite evident that in the years of being a journalist, you have failed to get the connection between some of the worst human behavior in history with prenatal exposure to alcohol. You have failed to see why the penal institutions of your state and most others are filled with people whose mother's drank and whose behaviors are not modifiable. You have also failed to research why children are often abused and sometimes murdered because they have Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and their parents may well have it, too.

If you think that drinking during pregnancy is something trivial, you are sadly mistaken and need to do more research as befitting a true "journalist."

--Peggy Seo Oba, RDH, MPA, MBA

I don't drink alcohol, and as a citizen I am deeply troubled every time I hear of someone killed by another drunk driver. However, I will sign this initiative when its available, and I'll vote for it. I'll support any measure to put free-enterprise where it belongs, and reroute overpaid state employee jobs into the private sector. Ramifications: I don't believe for one union-job-minute that private enterprise, as the sales source, will generate more fatalities than State generated sales. The REAL issue is how our society tolerates drunk driving in the first place.
We have our State's own Superintendent of Public Instruction to demonstrate for us. Randy Dorn pleaded guilty, served one day in jail, surrendered his driver's license for 90 days, and faces two Saturdays in drug- and alcohol-awareness classes. You know the definition of insanity.

JohhUSA - I feel exactly the same way, well said.

And from my perspective, it's a HUGE benefit to the consumer to have more convenient access to product. It's not that I will buy more, or will go more frequently to buy it, but when I want to buy it, I like to have it easy to get to. The more that buy it, the more prices will go down, the more we will all save money. When I travel to other states, and I see that Costco sells the same product in their store for much cheaper, it makes me very angry that they aren't allowed to do this back home. It's just unfair and antiquated!

Tea-bag or tea-party, whatever you call them, I can't imagine why they would oppose private liquor sales. Seems to me a member of that movement would support getting the government out of what is clearly NOT an essential governmet function.

The state got involved in liquor control just after the federal liquor
ban was repealed in order to have some control of "demon spirits".

The state should have removed itself from liquor control in the late
30s or early 40s as their fears of a population totally controlled by
booze was allayed.

The state liquor stores should have been closed decades ago, but the
state stores had a good thing going and did want to stop their control
of the liquor sales. This practice has been a drain on the taxpayers
far too long.

So what if Costco stands to benefit? So will taxpayers.