This morning, in perusing the blogs of some of my wine writing colleagues, I read some very interesting commentaries on the spirits privatization Initiative 1183. I have always been in favor of privatizing the sale of spirits as well as wine and beer. The State of Washington has no business being directly involved in the sale of liquor. The role of the Washington State Liquor Control Board should only be the enforcement of the laws governing liquor. One of my cohorts, Sean Sullivan (Washington Wine Report) is voting no on 1183 and two, Paul Gregutt (Unfined & Unfiltered) and John Sosnowy (Wine Peeps) have come out in favor of the initiative, and I am joining the latter two.

I'm not going into a lengthy analysis of Initiative 1183 and its pros and cons here. My colleagues, especially Sean Sullivan (although I disagree with his conclusion), have done admirable jobs of analysis. I'm just going to make a few points.

First, one of Sean Sullivan's greatest concerns was how the initiative might impact Washington wineries and retailers. Many smaller wineries fear that deregulation, such as allowing volume discounts to retailers, might adversely affect them, that they might get pushed aside by the big guys (Costco and the supermarkets). I am extremely supportive of Washington wineries (which is what my Review of Washington Wines is all about), but I think they need not fear 1183 as much as they do. There will always be a place for smaller wineries whose limited production is of little interest to the big stores. They can continue to market just as they do now. Look at California. Volume discounting has been around there for a long time, but there are thousands of boutique wineries in California. I really don't think Initiative 1183 is going to be that much of a game changer except that it gets the state out of the liquor business.

Secondly, the opposition to 1183 is being financed largely by the Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America who fear volume discounts and retailers buying directly from wineries (something already in effect) will cut into their business. They are bankrolling a fear campaign called "Protect our Communities" with scare tactics about minors buying liquor. It's really all about "Protect our Jobs." The spirits industy also opposes the initiative because they prefer the status quo which reduces competition by limiting the selection to that offered by state stores.

Finally, there is the question of whether or not Initiative 1183 benefits the public and the consumer. Analysis (see the other blogs I have mentioned) has shown that there should be added revenue to the state. Availability in more stores and more competition should result in better selection and pricing for consumers.

Initiative 1183 may not be the best scenario all around, but it would be a great step forward in getting the state out of an antiquated Liquor Control system which now exists in only eight states in the U.S. I have voted to approve the initiative (my ballot is in the mail) and urge others to do so, although I respect the opinions of those who are opposed.