Law 1183 for Washington - Essay Example

“The main issue however concerns the taxation and distribution of liquor in Washington” (Smith, 2010). There are proponents who argue that privatizing the liquor sales and distribution and availing the liquor on groceries would greatly increase the availability of the liquor sales, which will be another important part of the income to the city authority or the state government. The opponents of this initiative on the other hand advocate for state control in obtaining revenue as well as streamlining the drinking patterns within the community.

Initiative 1183 is a measure that is aimed at directing the liquor board to close down all the state owned liquor stores, terminate the contracts offered by the state to private stores selling liquor, and allow the state to issue private licenses that would allow the liquor to be sold, imported and distributed by private parties in groceries and other easy access points (Mercier, 2010). This initiative is aimed at repealing the uniform pricing as decided by the state liquor board, and other requirements that are required in sales and distribution of hard liquor.

In fact, stores that previously had contracts from the state controlled liquor distribution under this initiative might be converted to retail licenses. About 1,428 retail outlets in initiative 1183 would be licensed compared to3, 357 in initiative 1100 (Mercier, 2010). A study carried out by the Office of Financial Management (OFM) has been the impetus to the proponents of this initiative. There are estimations that upon implementing this initiative, the State General Fund revenue would increase from $216 to $253 million, while the local revenues are expected to improve from $186 to $227 million (Mercier, 2010).

This report has been used to consolidate proponents to vote for the initiative. In addition the initiative would retain the tax structure and license issuance would be about 17% of all liquor sales and an annual fee of $166 (Corte, 2010). One aspect in states protectionist monopoly is to reduce the overuse of hard liquor among its citizens. This makes the state to control not only the sales but also the consumption of the liquor. There are however, certain contradictions: “does state monopoly control the patterns and trends in alcohol intake?

State protectionism on alcohol consumption might not directly affect the alcohol consumption patterns in the state” (Smith, 2010). For example, California has an average consumption of 2.34 gallons of alcohol per an average person, while Washington has an average of 2.35 gallons of alcohol consumed per an average person, as per the National Institute of Health figures 2007 (Smith (2010). California has a full privatized hard liquor licenses and sales and distribution of other alcoholic drinks.

This makes alcohol readily available at groceries and other near points, where consumers may access the alcohol with ease (Smith, 2010). Proponents have a view that there is no difference between alcohol consumed in the two states, meaning that the protectionism in alcohol distribution would not be effective in controlling consumption. “Washington would be the fifth state in protectionism from the second position after initiative 1183” (Smith, 2010).This argument has been used to challenge the assertion that the use of alcohol would be a menace to good governance (Timberlake,