grehorst Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-06-18/five-wives-vodka-ban-liquor-alcohol-laws-abc-control/55674928/1?loc=interstitialskip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott @ Twenty2Vodka Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 hear, hear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick jones Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 With the possibility of incurring the wrath of the McCarthyists, I've got a question to ask... In which control states do you see the state supporting neo-prohibitionism? Living in a state where liquor licences are limited and commodotized (and worth from $0.3 to $1.5 million) I sometimes envy those people who live somewhere where it benefits the state financially to promote liquor sales. In New Mexico, every law, regulation, you name it, goes towards furthering the neo-prohibitionist movement (and therefore increasing the value of existing liquor licenses, since any politician who issues a new one will be commiting political suicide). Obviously, government bureaucracies are a huge pain in the ass and nobody likes to deal with them... Except the TTB, they're a model of efficiency... But if you live in a state where it costs you $1.5 million for a license to sell a single bottle of liquor it can be a little difficult to follow the "socialism=evil, capitalism=good" mantra, especially as I gaze longingly at the thriving liquor industries in control states such as Oregon. Why does the liquor industry thrive in Oregon (and other control states?), because it is in the financial interest of the state to make it thrive. Why is the liquor industry in New Mexico constantly supressed by the state? Because it is in the financial interest of the liqour license owners, and their powerful lobby, to make sure no new licenses get issued (the new licenses are, by law, NOT commoditized) so that they maintain their monopoly on the comoditized licenses. Sure, Marx was wrong. Profit rules all, and will continue to rule all. But ask yourself: if it's not the state making the profit, then who is making the profit, and what's their agenda? Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rickdiculous Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 It is interesting that Mr Turley made no statement about the 10-30% price increase which went on liquor sales after privatization. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/04/washington-state-liquor-privatization_n_1565414.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now