Well, Skip, if indeed "the last vestiges of Prohibition are finally gone," what about that curious institution, the State Liquor Control Board? After it finishes with the immense new assignment of offloading its retail and distribution empire, what core functions of government will it continue to provide--which could not, perhaps, be handled by other agencies, maybe even at other (non-state) levels? A Seattle restaurant wants to serve alcohol? Why talk to Olympia about that and not just a city- or county-based agency? Want alcohol served at your daughter's wedding reception? Again, why must the state be involved? To fully rid ourselves of the institutional detritus of the Prohibition era, I think there's still some dismantling to do.

Here is where you can really see a generational difference between old mossbacks, like Mossback, and young mossbacks: "sin at bargain prices."

Americans have struggled with the notion of liquor as sin since before the Civil War. Yet in pretty much every other industrialized society, liquor is seen as just an incidental beverage among many options, and in many cases it is culturally entrenched. What Dane would think of a heavy overnight meal on New Year's without aquavit? What French(wo)man would balk at a digestif after a heavy meal? No one perceives these examples of liquor use as "sinful." They are a part of life, they are part of culture, and they are a part of being a human being on this planet.

In America we have an incredibly long tradition of spirits, from Kentucky bourbon and Tennessee whiskey to what amounts to new golden age of local distilleries we're seeing in the Northwest.

Mossbacks of a certain age may persist in the view that hard liquor is somehow "sinful," but the younger generation of mossbacks has traveled Europe and Asia is well past that puritanical notion and sees liquor as one of any number of perfectly acceptable beverage options in myriad contexts, just like wine and beer. That is why 1183 passed.

Boys, boys. First, there is nothing "sophisticated" or "grown-up" about consuming alcohol--that's a created myth of liquor company advertising, no different than what drives young teens to want to smoke. Second, there will be no "Likker Locker," because Costco cleverly arranged to have sales reserved for larger stores like themselves (surprise!) and Safeway/QFC/Thriftway. Third, no one is looking at the statistics of domestic violence, absenteeism, and driving fatalities. Fourth, an aperitif (or digestif) is hardly a hard liquor but is meant specifically to be consumed in small quantities in relation to food--quite different than shots of tequila or Jack or aquavit(By the way, don't romanticize Europe and alcohol--there are serious problems there, as well). U.S. culture moved away from hard liquor ("Gimme three-fingers of rye!") to a beer and (now) wine culture; productivity soared, violence decreased, life expectancy grew, health improved. Prohibition in its extreme form was wrong and bad policy, but as a constraint on a serious social problem, it had its benefits. And, please, stop romanticizing Canlis and the luxury restaurants of the rich--it's the pretentious nonsense of a pseudo-aristocracy. I say all this as a dedicated imbiber.

What happens to all those who will be unemployed as a result of the passage of I-1183? As they lose their jobs, will they have the fortune to find jobs in other state agencies, particularly those who are fairly close to retirement? You may celebrate all you want, but please remember the passage of this initiative now has a substantial human cost as a result!

kathrynthegreat: Substantial human cost? Between 700 and 900 jobs statewide is substantial?

While unfortunate for anyone to lose their jobs, selling liquor was something the state should never have finagled its way into. While people complain about the size and waste in government, I've been amazed at the concern for a few hundred workers who are employed by the state, working in stores next to existing grocery stores that already sell beer and wine, and who get the most incredible benefits that don't come cheap.

Let the private sector handle that. I'm sure the fine employees from the WSLCB will find jobs at new or expanding grocery and liquor stores that will inevitably pop up everywhere.

Getgrip, I think you fail to get real. This was a grab by the big guys to grab even more and they fooled you into thinking it would be good for you. The winners are Kroger, Safeway, Winn-Dixie, Bacardi Ltd. The losers are the local employees of the liquor stores plus the multiplier effect of those employees, the victims of those with greater and easier access to alcohol, young people, the small distillers in Washington state, victims of drunk drivers, and even your access to a real variety of labels, local and global. But the biggest loser is that citizen was replaced by consumer, that is, the public good lost to the greed of the big guys and you bought into it. Costco is simply another version of the selfish consumer ethic that has overtaken our politics.

Like so many industries that used to employ thousands here in Washington State, they will simply have to retrain, adopt and move on. Ask any of the Papermakers, loggers, fisherman, farmers that are left, how many people have lost their jobs and the compassion demonstrated by the State at their plight.