I-1183 will kill hundreds of puppies!

If I-1183 passes, puppies will eat this baby!

and....

• 1000 mini-marts will sell booze to underage drinkers. 
• A drunk driver killed my child, and that's why I'm voting no on I-1183
• We already have an enforcement issue, I-1183 will make it worse.
• If I-1183 passes the terrorists will win. 

In the event you're not from the Washington state area, or you mute every political ad you see, I-1183 is a proposal that would privatize the sale of hard alcohol in our state. Proponents say that it will eliminate government spending on storefronts and allow for somewhat competitive pricing. Opponents say that it will lead to an increase in consumption, drinking and driving and sales of liquor to children.

There are big dollars being spent to sway opinion on the issue, the "YES" people stand to make a lot of money on smaller margins and the ability to market a product people are already buying. The backers of the NO side stand to lose a lot of money by having to give up a standardized markup.

In researching my "facts" about who is paying for what I found an article on the Bellingham Herald webside that says they did some research into the backers:

Protect Our Communities, which is against the initiative, is mostly funded by the Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America. In fact, of the more than $5 million the campaign has raised, 95 percent of the funding comes from that group. The campaign also has significant union support.

The Yes on 1183 Coalition, on the other hand, gets most of its funding from Costco - 94 percent of the cash contributions, in fact. The rest comes from Safeway and Trader Joe’s. This group has lots in in-kind contributions. Of the 1.3 million in in-kind contributions, 98 percent of the in-kind contributions come from Costco.

(These numbers are all as of about 5 p.m. on Sept. 12.)

Assuming their research is accurate, I stand firmly beside my opinion that ALL the pro and con arguments regarding this issue is about money. However, the NO people can't say "we dont' want it because we'll lose out on money" they have to appeal to our more basic values, and thus "I-1183 kills babies."

The scare tactics work, no one wants kids to buy booze, and certainly no one wants them to drive drunk or be killed by drunk drivers. However, the suggestion that the increased availability of booze will increase consumption is silly. Studies conducted in the last few states to privatize sales showed that there was no increase in consumption of alcoholic beverages (wine, beer AND booze) after the privatization occurred. And, lets not forget that you can buy wine and beer at almost every corner grocery and gas station mini-mart in our great state.

 I have an acquaintance that is against the passing of I-1183. I respect her right to her opinion, but could only hold my tongue for so long when she was spamming facebook with her message about the death of children associated to privatization of liquor sales (it wasn't THAT bad, but since I'm the writer here I get to present her message my own way).

My response was:

With all due respect and honoring your right to your opinion, but I believe the statistics used in many of the NO on I-1183 ads and information being given to our community is skewed. Now, I won't deny that both sides tell the story to enhance their own views, but if you look at the last few states to privatize liquor sales (WA is one of the last holdouts) consumption remained flat after privatization.

I'm certainly not an advocate of anything other than responsibility when it comes to this topic, but I don't see how being able to buy liquor at Costco is any different than being able to buy cases and cases of wine, or kegs of beer. 

Both sides, the Yes and the No people are backed by big money. These backers don't care about our kids, they care about our pocketbooks. I hope people will do their own research and vote according to facts vs. scare tactics. 

This is my opinion and my apologies if this opens an ugly debate. Not my intention, because I'm not good at debate.

____

She didn't reply to me, but her sister did and she opened with " Terri, as a Mother, I...." and then went on to explain that her underage son is already attempting to buy beer at the local mini-mart and while he knows it's wrong he has bad decision making skills.  Therefore limiting availability is good for her.

Blah Blah Blah, I stopped listening after "as a Mother".  That got under my skin as if she was suggesting that only MOTHERS could see reason, or that if you're not a MOTHER that you don't care about children.  Well, as someone who until very recently was NOT a mother I say "phlllltttttttt" to that idea.  I'm sure that was not her intent, but that's what I heard.

As a mother, I need to get back to work, so here is my ultimate point:  please do your OWN research on this issue and make an educated decision when you vote.