Legislature addresses liquor privatization and increased youth access

Since hard liquor became available in grocery and other large retail stores, Prevention WINS coalition members have reported that it is easily stolen by minors.  During the coalition’s December 2012 general meeting, the North Precinct Liaison for the Seattle City Attorney’s Office reported:

~ All grocery stores, including all North Seattle groceries, are being hit by theft of liquor. 

~ Store security officers usually have a hands-off policy and are told to verbally discourage theft.

 

~ Many stores display alcohol near doors, making it easy for people to steal. 

~ When corporate offices are contacted, they state that, as a corporation, liquor theft is not affecting their profits and they do not plan to address the problem. 

~ Some South Seattle stores have begun to lock up their liquor. 

~ It is estimated that stores are losing up to $1,000 per day and the Roosevelt Safeway reports that they are losing about $30,000 per month due to liquor theft.  Stores are likely under-reporting their losses and that reported losses should be multiplied by 3 to get a more accurate picture. 

~ The King County Prosecutor’s Office does not prosecute any theft less than $1,000.  The Seattle City Attorney’s Office is working to track individual thieves so that when they steal an aggregate of more than $750 the City Attorney can refer them to the Prosecutor’s Office. 

Liquor theft is not unique to Seattle. In response, the state legislature passed a bill aimed at reducing theft.  KPLU broadcast a story about it today:

Grocery store owners who are losing liquor to shoplifters could pay a hefty price. Under a new law that takes effect June 13, the state can take away the store's license to sell liquor.

The crack down is aimed at keeping liquor out of the hands of underage drinkers.

Thefts Began With Privatization

As soon as liquor was privatized in Washington in 2012, Rep. Christopher Hurst, D-Enumclaw, began hearing stories from cops about juveniles being caught with hard liquor. Hurst says that wasn't the case with state-run liquor stores, which had a theft rate of about zero.

Almost always, he says, the bottle of whiskey or tequila had been “lifted” from a retail shelf.

While many store owners did begin locking the liquor away and putting up special security systems, Hurst was frustrated by how lax some stores remained.

“You know, there were stores that had, eight steps from the door at one o'clock in the morning, Jose Cuervo or Jack Daniels or Jaegermeister — stuff that kids, of course, love and like to steal,” Hurst said.

New Law Goes After Retailers

Under the new law, a store that doesn't secure its liquor could lose its license from the state Liquor Control Board.

The state will be able to take the license away if the store has, within six months, two shoplifting incidents that result in the alcohol ending up in a juvenile's hands.

Hurst, who sponsored the legislation, says he thinks it’s already making a difference. He says he recently returned to a store that had displayed its liquor next to the front door.

Liquor privatization & marijuana legalization: The impact of policy change on Washington's youth

This morning, the WA House Early Learning & Human Services Committee held a work session about youth access to alcohol and marijuana since the adoption of Initiative 1183 (liquor privatization) and Initiative 502 (marijuana legalization.)



Data collected by the Division of Behavioral Health and Recovery (DBHR) indicate that since the adoption of I-1183:

• Pro-alcohol attitudes among youth increased significantly;
• Perceived access to alcohol among youth increased;
• Emergency department visits for alcohol-related conditions significantly increased among minors;
• In King County during the first 16 months post-privatization, emergency departments reported an estimated additional 5,500 visits for alcohol-related conditions; 
• Our state has more than 1,000 new places to buy liquor;
• Theft of liquor, including theft by minors, increased.   

Though not enough time has passed since the adoption of I-502 to be able to analyze long-term effects, early data indicate that youth perceptions of risk associated with marijuana use significantly declined.  With retail stores scheduled to open this year, researchers expect increased availability of marijuana among minors.

2/27/14 Update: Below are links to media reports about the work session.

Liquor privatization in Washington bad for youths, new study says 

Teen addiction specialists report riskier behavior after marijuana and liquor initiatives

Study: Liquor privatization has shaped youth perception of alcohol

Central Seattle survey shows shift in student attitudes toward pot, alcohol

KOMO recently reported on findings from a survey conducted by the Central Seattle Drug Free Communities Coalition about student's changing attitudes about marijuana.  Communities throughout Seattle and the state are reporting similar changes in student attitudes.

Marijuana and alcohol theft not uncommon in Seattle

Pot cookies, like these,
stolen from NE Seattle
marijuana dispensary.

On Friday, I posted information about North Seattle crime related to marijuana, including the sale of pot brownies to middle and high school students.  Yesterday, the Seattle Police Department shared information about recent robberies at North Seattle marijuana dispensaries.  Apparently, during one of the robberies in NE Seattle pot cookies were among the items stolen.

Marijuana is not the only drug targeted by thieves.  Theft of hard alcohol has been a problem since the approval of I-1183, the initiative that privatized the sale of hard alcohol, the Prevention WINS coalition learned during a recent general meeting.  Unless the items stolen value at least $1,000, the King County Prosecutor's Office generally does not prosecute offenders.  Both the Seattle Weekly and the West Seattle Herald reported on alcohol thefts recently. 

As the Seattle Weekly notes, youth who are caught with alcohol (minor in possession) generally are not charged with a crime but are referred to the King County diversion program. 

I-1183: expectation vs. reality

Earlier this month, a group of 23 people representing NE Seattle participated in the annual Washington State Prevention Summit in Yakima.  Three student teams were part of the NE Seattle delegation representing Eckstein Middle School, Nathan Hale High School, and Roosevelt High School.  Youth and adults learned about the latest substance abuse trends and how to develop and conduct prevention activities in their communities.

Some youth and adult workshop handouts are now available through the Prevention Summit website.

Among the handouts are ones from an adult workshops about the effects of Initiative 1183 that privatized the sale of spirits/hard alcohol and deregulated other aspects of our state's liquor system.  Here are a few of the slides from the presentation.

More information about the implementation of I-1183 is available on the Washington State Liquor Control Board website.  The Proposed Rules page includes information about defining "trade area" and the Recently Adopted Rules page includes new rules related to I-1183 including the delivery of spirits/hard alcohol to homes.

Liquor shoplifting "epidemic" & increasingly violent

Updated 11/13/12

Here is another story about shoplifting of hard alcohol that some say is becoming "epidemic" and more violent.

The switch to private liquor sales has made it easier for shoppers to get their hands on booze, but it's also made it easier for crooks.

In the past several months, police have noticed a growing trend of brazen liquor thefts. The shoplifting has become so rampant that some say it's practically an epidemic.

"The shoplifters are more bold, they tend not to care and they're getting more violent with security officers," said assistant Seattle City Attorney Jana Jorgensen.

Law enforcement officials say the thefts are happening every day in every city at nearly every grocery store. A source claims one Queen Anne grocer has lost $1,000 a day since June. That's $150,000 in lost profits and stolen tax revenue for the state, and that's just one store.

"There is a number of rings out there working, stealing alcohol," said King County sheriff's office spokesperson Cindi West. "It's a quick way to make a buck and easy to get rid of."

And then there is this from the Seattle Police Department:


Major Crimes Task Force detectives have arrested six people as part of an investigation into widespread liquor theft in the Seattle area, including several people who were buying booze stolen from Seattle stores to resell to high schoolers and wedding parties.


. . . An 18-year-old . . . ordered up 120 supposedly stolen bottles of liquor from police. Detectives made their delivery, and immediately arrested the teen.

After his arrest, the 18-year-old man told detectives he was reselling the liquor to Seattle high school students.

As a result of Operation Cheapshots, detectives arrested six people, and booked four of them into the King County Jail for investigation of trafficking stolen property.

MCTF also recovered 451 bottles of liquor and 11 firearms as a result of the operation.

This provides a stark example of an unintended consequence of making a drug more available and easily accessible.

What's been happening since I-1183 was approved?

It's been almost a year since Initiative 1183, which privatized the sales of hard alcohol and removed other alcohol regulations, was approved by Washington voters.  So, what has been happening in the past year?

Shoplifting
Recently, I've attended several meetings, both local and on the state level, during which a hot topic was the amount of hard alcohol that is being shoplifted from grocery stores.  Here is a news report with an example of what is happening across the state.



Increased enforcement needs with less enforcement capacity
Since I-1183 was approved, the Washington State Liquor Control Board (WSLCB) lost over 1,000 full time employees, according to a report given during the September meeting of the WSLCB Business Advisory Council.

Since I-1183 did not direct more funding for the WSLCB Enforcement division, despite an increase in the number of liquor licensees, there are 290 liquor licensees for every Enforcement officer.  The Education and Enforcement division officer staffing is down 15% with an increase of retail licensees of 23%.

Business representatives reported that many of them have plans to ask the Washington legislature to remove or reduce fees that were included in I-1183.  These fees were included in the initiative to ensure that the state would not lose revenue due to liquor privatization.

NE Seattle
In addition to the more than 80 businesses that sell alcohol (not just hard alcohol) for off-premise consumption in NE Seattle, a new big box liquor store will soon be opening on Lake City Way right next door to a marijuana dispensary.

Buyer's remorse?
This video, produced by the UFCW, discusses liquor privatization in our state as a way to educate Pennsylvania voters as they consider privatizing the sale of liquor.

Spirits to be sold over internet & phone for home delivery

The Washington State Liquor Control Board is seeking input regarding a rule change to allow spirits/hard alcohol to be sold over the internet, by phone, or by mail.  The proposal would allow for delivery to a residence -- a hotel or motel room would be considered a temporary residence.  Read the text of the rule change here.

The Liquor Control Board is accepting comments until Wednesday, October 24.  Comments may be emailed to the Rules Coordinator at rules@liq.wa.gov.  Comments may also be made during a public hearing on Wednesday, October 24, 10:00 a.m. in Olympia.

UPDATE:  The Liquor Control Board public hearing on this issue was postponed to October 31.  Same time, same place.

What is the role of public policy in public health and safety?

What a week to contemplate the role of public policy and the regulation of beverages, foods and other substances that have an affect on health!

First, on Friday our state ushered in a new era of private liquor sales, making it available in every gocery store, drug store, and big-box store that is at least 10,000 square feet -- which, in NE Seattle, is virtually every one.  Limiting alcohol availablity is one proven method for preventing underage drinking and excessive alcohol consumption.  Last year, Washingtonians decided that public health and safety risks were worth the convenience of easily accessible liquor. 

Many of the media stories about our new privatized system focus on the new taxes levied on liquor.  From a youth substance abuse prevention standpoint, these taxes are good.  Increasing taxes on alcohol is a proven method for reducing underage drinking rates. 

Today, Californians are voting on a proposition that would raise taxes on every pack of cigarettes by $1.00, yielding an estimated $735 million a year for the state. Tobacco taxes are a proven method for reducing youth tobacco use.

In New York City, their mayor is pushing to ban the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks at restaurants, movie theaters and street carts.  A debate appearing in the New York Times, What's the Best Way to Break Society's Bad Habits?, includes a piece written by Daniel Okrent, the author of Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition.  In it he writes that Prohibition failed . . . "because you cannot successfully legislate human desire . . . if people really want to do something, and there isn't an immediate and universally acknowledged victim, they will find their way to do it, irrespective of laws and regulations."

While human desire may not be legislated, a balance needs to be found between human desire and public health costs.  When it comes to unhealthy habits, including underage drinking and excessive alcohol consumption (and I venture to guess many health advocates would include the excessive consumption of sugary drinks and the use of tobacco), there are universally acknowledged victims.  Laws and regulations are essential for keeping "human desire" in check so that it doesn't create harms including health care costs related to disease, injuries, accidents, and other consequences of unhealthy behaviors. 

What often does not appear in media stories about Prohibition is what Mr. Okrent told a reporter in 2010 about one positive outcome of Prohibition:

" . . . one of the very few positive consequences of Prohibition was the reduction in drinking. There was a very steep reduction immediately after it went into effect, but even the ensuing years of speakeasies, bathtub gin, cross-border smuggling, and every other manner of law-breaking did not bring drinking back to pre-Prohibition levels. At the end of Prohibition, Americans were consuming approximately 70 percent as much alcohol as they had in 1914.

In fact, it wasn’t until 1973 that we returned to pre-Prohibition levels of alcohol consumption, and only a few years later the per capita consumption figure began to decline again. Even now, we’re only inching our way back to the 1914 high-water mark.

One figure we’ll never reach again: the 7.5 gallons of absolute alcohol the average American drank in 1830 – the equivalent of 90 fifths of 80-proof liquor, or nearly three times as much as we consume today."

Don't get me wrong -- I do not think that we should go back to the days of outlawing alcohol use.  However, I think his statement points to the need for a debate that includes all of the facts.  We've heard plenty about how Prohibition failed, we need to hear more about how Prohibition and other policies may have created change for the good. 

The New York Times introduces their debate about sugary drinks by asking, "But is the government's role to change people's behaviors and make them live healther lives?  And if so, what's the most effective way to do so?"  It's an important debate that couldn't be more timely.

WA Supreme Court opinions affirm link between liquor and public safety risks

The Washington State Supreme Court today ruled, 5-4, that Initiative 1183 is constitutional.  Starting tomorrow, liquor (spirits, hard alcohol) will be for sale in grocery and other stores that are at least 10,000 square feet.

Both the majority and dissenting Supreme Court opinions affirm what substance abuse prevention advocates have been saying all along: increased access to alcohol means increased public safety risks.  

The justices that voted to uphold I-1183 wrote:

. . . liquor has an obvious connection to broader pubic safety concerns . . . As local government officials assert in their amici brief, the burden of enforcing liquor sales laws and prosecuting offenders falls heavily on local governments.   

It would be improper to overlook the impact that changes to liquor regulation could have on general public safety expenditures by local governments.   

The justices that found I-1183 unconstitutional wrote:

First, respondents (Costco, State) argue that “public safety is rationally connected to liquor.  On a theoretical level, this is undoubtably true.  The consumption of liquor increases public safety risks; drunk driving and alcoholism come quickly to mind.  Thus, the State contends that funneling liquor tax money into public safety ameliorates the damage done by the initiative or is a hedge against the increased public safety risk that would come along with higher liquor consumption and easier access to liquor. 

 . . . proponents of I-1183 (Costco) never acknowledged (during the campaign) that privatizing liquor would lead to increased consumption or public safety risk.   

During the lawsuit hearings, proponents of I-1183 contested that increased access to liquor will increase public safety risks.  This is different from what they claimed during the campaign last fall.  We substance abuse prevention advocates would do well to remember this as the alcohol industry, including businesses that sell alcohol, continue to try to chip away at alcohol regulations.   

The majority opinion specifically states that those of us who work to prevent substance abuse have an interest in regulating alcohol:  Indeed, intervenors (Costco, State) stress the established relationship between public safety and liquor . . . such as the increase in liquor availability would injure WASAVP’s (Washington Association for Substance Abuse and Violence Prevention -- the substance abuse prevention community’s) goals. 

Liquor Control Board will not consider extending alcohol service hours

Today, the Washington State Liquor Control Board denied the City of Seattle's request to open rule-making regarding hours of alcohol service.  In Washington, liquor sales will continue to be prohibited between the hours of 2-6:00 a.m.

The two Board members who voted to deny the City of Seattle's request cited concerns about public health and safety.  For instance, the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs recently took a position against extended hours.  Community substance abuse prevention advocates pointed to the National Prevention Strategy that recommends reducing hours of alcohol sales as a proven way to reduce excessive drinking.  

In his public statement, the one Board member who voted to move forward with the City of Seattle's request states, "Our decision today begs the question of what exactly is the role of this three-person Board in the wake of Initiative 1183?  If it is not to oversee a healthy and public dialogue on complex, contentious issues that deal with alcohol access, what is it?  That's not for me to answer here today, but I do believe it is a conversation that will begin in the near future, and our inaction today is as good a starting point as any."

While I think that the Board did, in fact, oversee a healthy and public dialogue about a complex, contentious issue over the past few months, I also think he makes a good point about the role of the Board post-liquor privatization.  I think he's right when he says that the role of the Board and the role of alcohol regulations in our state are part of a conversation that needs to continue.  Those of us concerned with public health and safety should be ready for it.

Statements from each of the Board members may be viewed through the Liquor Control Board website.

Liquor Control Board seeks public input about rules to implement I-1183

The Washington State Liquor Control Board would like your input on proposed rules to implement Initiative 1183 which privatized liquor sales in Washington. The following chapters in WAC 314 will be addressed in this rule making:

• WAC 314-05  Special Occasion Licenses
• WAC 314-11  General requirements for licensees
• WAC 314-13  Retail licensees purchasing beer, wine, and spirits
• WAC 314-24  Domestic wineries and domestic wine distributors
• WAC 314-27  Interstate Commercial Common Passenger Carriers
• WAC 314-30  Manufacturers
• WAC 314-36  Importers, Public Storage Warehouses and Importation of Liquor
• WAC 314-37  Non-state liquor stores
• WAC 314-38  Permits
• WAC 314-42  Liquor Control Board operations
• WAC 314-44  Licensed Agents
• WAC 314-45  Serving and donating liquor by suppliers at trade conventions of licensees
• WAC 314-52 Advertising
• WAC 314-64  Liquor samples
• WAC 314-76  Special orders

Public Comment

Please forward you initial comments to the Liquor Control Board by June 27, 2012.

Public Hearing

June 27, 2012, 10:00 a.m.

Washington State Liquor Control Board – Board Room

3000 Pacific Avenue SE, Olympia, WA

If you have any questions, please contact the Liquor Control Board at rules@liq.wa.gov.

Liquor Control Board Public Health & Safety Forum

On Tuesday, March 13, the Liquor Control Board hosted a Public Health & Safety Forum about the implementation of I-1183, the initiative that privatizes the sale of liquor and further deregulates marketing wine and liquor in Washington.  The forum was well attended not only by public health and safety advocates but by representatives of the businesses that will benefit from I-1183 including Costco, Target and the Grocers Association. 

Following are some notes that I took during the hearing. 

Trade Area
The initiative states that stores selling liquor must be 10,000 square feet or larger.  Exceptions will be made if such a store does not exist in a "trade area".  Trade area is not defined.  The Liquor Control Board (LCB) will look at defining trade area after June 1, 2012.  Previously, the LCB determined if a new liquor store should be opened if (1) there was significant population growth in an area, (2) if travel time for customers was more than 15 minutes, and (3) customer satisfaction surveys indicated that people were unhappy about how far they had to travel to get to a store. 

It is estimated that the number of stores selling liquor in Washington will increase from 340 to about 1300-1400 once I-1183 is implemented. 

Alcohol Impact Areas
In NE Seattle, the University District is considered an Alcohol Impact Area (AIA).  This designation means:

- Seattle is given more time to review liquor license applications and renewals for businesses inside the AIA.

- Seattle may also request that the Liquor Control Board restrict grocery and convenience stores in the University District from selling certain types of beers and wines that are linked to local chronic public inebriation problems (such as high alcohol content, low-cost products), or restrict the hours that retailers can sell to-go.

The AIA designation does not preclude grocery stores in the area from selling liquor once I-1183 is fully implemented. 

Hours of Sale
Currently, most liquor stores close at 10:00 p.m.  I-1183 does not contain a provision limiting the hours of sale of liquor -- grocery and other large stores may sell liquor as long as they are open for business.

Responsible Vendor Program
The LCB is instituting a Responsible Vendor Program that encourages liquor licensees to put in place store policies meant to prevent the sale of liquor to minors.  The program is free, voluntary and self-monitoring.  The LCB will only check compliance with the program if they receive complaints about the business.  Of the more than 1,000 businesses that have applied for liquor licenses around the state as of the beginning of the month, only about 30 have applied to be a part of the Responsible Vendor Program.

Enforcement
No additional funds have been allocated to the Liquor Control Board to provide increased enforcement.  Currently, there are 300 liquor licensees per LCB officer.  They will focus their efforts on licensees near schools and colleges and those about which they receive complaints.   

Who will sell hard alcohol in NE Seattle?

Yesterday, the Capitol Hill blog reported that 72 stores in Seattle have applied for, or stated that they intend to apply for, licenses to sell hard alcohol as of March 1, 2012.  The blog includes a list and map of all stores that have applied. 

According to the map, 16 stores located in NE Seattle have applied to sell hard alcohol.  These include Walgreens, Safeway, QFC, Fred Meyer and Target.  This change will significantly increase the hard alcohol outlet density in our community.  Prior to June 1, when I-1183 goes into affect, hard alcohol is sold in 3 NE Seattle stores. 

High alcohol outlet density is described as a public health problem by the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention's Community Guide:

An alcohol outlet is a place where alcohol may be legally sold for the buyer to drink there (on-premises outlets, such as bars or restaurants) or elsewhere (off-premises outlets, such as liquor stores). Density refers to the number of alcohol outlets in a given area.

The Community Preventive Services Task Force recommends the use of regulatory authority (e.g., through licensing and zoning) to limit alcohol outlet density on the basis of sufficient evidence of a positive association between outlet density and excessive alcohol consumption and related harms (including underage drinking).

Liquor Control Board to host two public meetings on alcohol regulations

Do you have something to say about the further deregulation of alcohol?  Do you want to learn about how public health and safety may be affected by I-1183, the initiative that privatized liquor sales and further deregulated alcohol in general?  Here are two forums that you may want to attend.  

Liquor Control Board Public Hearing: The City of Seattle’s petition to extended hours of alcohol service
March 12, 2012 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
Seattle City Hall
Bertha Knight Landes Room
600 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, WA

Public Health & Safety Stakeholder Forum
March 13, 2012, 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Liquor Control Board Headquarters
3000 Pacific Avenue SE
Olympia, WA

During this forum, senior Liquor Control Board staff will be available to answer questions about the implementation of I-1183 including how hard alcohol will be distributed and sold and changes in licensing and regulation. 

Alcohol regulation in the news

As the state works to implement I-1183, the initiative that privatizes liquor sales and further deregulates alcohol in general, the impacts of deregulation are being exposed.

For an overview of how I-1183 is playing out in Seattle, check out Getting liquored up which appears in Seattle City Living.  The article questions promises made by the proponents of deregulation such as lower liquor prices and more selection. 

Who wants to sell booze? appeared in yesterday's PI and lists the many stores that are applying for licenses to sell hard alcohol.  Here's an excerpt:

Of the 1,400 stores expected to sell liquor under Initiative 1183, more than 850 have applied for one of the state’s new retail spirits licenses.

Most of the requests are from big-box chains you’d expect to sell under the measure, which killed the state’s Prohibition-era liquor system. But there’s a few surprises in who wants in on the booze business.

Approved by voters last November, the measure allows stores at least 10,000 square feet to sell vodka, gin and other spirits. There’s an exception for smaller stores, if no other store sells liquor in its “trade area.” The state still needs to define that term.

Meanwhile, HealthDay reports: Support for tougher liquor laws rises when booze, crime linked.  The article states: It is estimated that drinking is involved in nearly one-third of deaths from accidents and violent crime. Most news reports of such cases, however, make no mention of alcohol, according to the authors of the study, published in the March issue of the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs.

Then there is the CNN story, Studies cite link between booze sales, inner-city violence that reports: "Taking into account other factors known to contribute to youth homicide rates – such as poverty, drugs, availability of guns and gangs – the researchers found that higher densities of liquor stores, providing easy access to alcoholic beverages, contributed significantly to higher youth homicide rates . . ."  This echos what prevention advocates have been saying all along, that higher rates of alcohol availability is bad for public health.

Not to mention that the World Health Organization is now pushing for stronger alcohol regulations worldwide. 

Finally, a Seattle Times article about how craft distilleries may be harmed by I-1183 reports: Joe Gilliam, president of the Northwest Grocery Association, which represents Costco and others, met recently with Idaho's governor and other officials to discuss privatizing its liquor system. 

My question is: who is the prevention community's Joe Gilliam?  Those of us advocating for policies that prevent underage drinking, such as tough regulations, have a steep path ahead of us considering the money and power wielded by the alcohol industry. 

How new liquor rules will affect communities

From the Washington State Coalition to Reduce Underage Drinking:

Last fall Washington voters passed Initiative 1183. Among other things, it privatizes Washington’s hard liquor distribution and sales system. Currently the WA State Liquor Control Board is developing new guidelines and procedures which will help govern implementation of I-1183. Here are responses to key questions.

Will we have more outlets selling spirits (hard liquor)?
It’s very likely there will be a significant increase in stores selling hard liquor. Your local Walmart, Safeway, or any other large outlet (over 10,000 sq. ft.) can apply for a retail spirits license. If there are no stores that large in your area, smaller stores may apply for a license to sell hard liquor.

Will it be easier for young people to get alcohol in stores?
Currently there is no requirement about training clerks to check ID. More than 95% of Washington’s state liquor stores passed liquor sales compliance checks. The rate in non-state stores was less than 80%.

Will there be more Liquor Control Officers enforcing liquor laws?
No, the Initiative does not require the addition of enforcement officers to deal with the increased number of sales outlets. Your local city or county will receive additional funds for public safety but they are not required to use those funds for enforcement of liquor laws and regulations.

Will the hours for selling alcohol be increased?
We don’t know. The Initiative requires the Liquor Control Board to develop a Responsible Vendor Program. That program can include standardized sale hours and require training of all employees. The LCB is soliciting comment now.

How can I provide my input to the Liquor Control Board about the Responsible Vendor Program?
The Liquor Control is taking comment on the new rules now. To comment, send an email with your recommendations about training criteria, standardized store hours, location of spirits products, and other concerns to rules@liq.wa.gov. Make sure to type Responsible Vendor Program in the subject line of your email.

Transitioning to private liquor sales in WA

The Liquor Control Board's (LCB) website now contains information about the work being done in response to the passage of Initiative 1183.  The LCB will cease state liquor store and liquor distribution operations by June 1, 2012. The Seattle Distribution Center - which supplies state and contract liquor stores with liquor - and its assets will be sold.  The private sector will be allowed to sell and distribute liquor with the proper liquor licenses.

Several laws related to the three-tier system will also change, including:

• Uniform pricing is repealed for liquor and wine.
• Ban on quantity discounts is repealed for liquor and wine.

Repealing these policies will enable retailers to sell liquor and wine at lower prices.  These are of particular concern to underage drinking prevention advocates because lower alcohol prices are associated with higher alcohol consumption among teenagers.

I-1183: How NE Seattle voted

The Seattle Times posted maps that show precinct by precinct election results for I-1183, the initiative for privatizing liquor sales and further deregulating alcohol in general.  Below is a snapshot of how NE Seattle voted. 

Small grocery stores want in on the liquor business

And so it starts . . . just days after I-1183, the initiative to privatize liquor sales in our state, passed, Publicola reports that small grocers are preparing to ask legislators to reduce the required size of stores selling hard alcohol. 

People can call me and other pro-regulation advocates a nanny or a liar all that they want, but the research is clear: increased access to alcohol increases consumption, including consumption among minors.  I blogged about it on October 24 and August 18.  The coalition website contains links to lessons learned about private liquor sales and public health consequences in the UK.  AlcoholPolicyMD.com is one of many great online resources about how public policy can be used to prevent underage drinking. 

People can also say that "kids will be kids" and that there is nothing we can do to stop them from drinking but, again, we have research that shows otherwise.  Not to mention that our northeast Seattle community has worked together to reduce underage drinking rates over the past five years. 

Will strong regulations and policy limiting alcohol marketing and availability alone prevent underage drinking?  No.  However, it is one tool for communities to use to prevent underage drinking.  When one part of an already beleaguered substance abuse prevention system is eliminated, it makes a significant difference in a community's ability to keep kids safe and healthy.