I just finished watching a political ad on TV from a local winemaker, who claims that they are going to go out of business if Initiative 1100 passes. The commercial shows smiling, hardworking Americans in very clean clothes making your booze on a sunny day in Washington (huh?). Well, this merits a few minutes of my attention.

In short, the initiative would remove a lot of state-controlled liquor pricing, would close the state-run liquor stores, and would end the requirement that stores purchase beer, wine and liquor from a distributor. Stores could buy directly from the manufacturer, and could negotiate lower prices.

Currently, breweries have to sell their beer for the same price to every retailer. That means that the local mini mart pays the same price as Safeway for a six-pack of Bud Light. If this initiative passes, that six pack will likely be heavily discounted when Safeway buys truckloads of them every day, versus the mini mart which may only take a truckload’s worth every six months.

That’s why proponents of the bill say that if it passes, we’ll have lower prices on liquor, wine and beer. That seems fairly obvious, since large retailers have been doing that for decades, and states without these restrictions have far lower liquor prices that Washington.

The opponents of this initiative know that lower prices appeal to a lot of people. So, they’ve centered their strategy on two main ideas to convince you otherwise: small wineries and craft beer makers would go out of business, and we’re going to lose a lot of jobs. Let’s look at each one of those separately.

The opponents first argument is that they won’t be able to compete if they have to cut their prices to get Safeway to carry their booze. Well, that already happens with nearly every other product the store carries.

It’s a pretty simple concept in the wholesale business; if you buy more of the product, you can get a bigger discount. The big retailers will be able to buy the national brands with heavy discounts, making the Washington booze look a lot more expensive.

Washington producers will just have to work harder to make a superior product. Overpriced booze that is only marginally good would not survive the cutdown, motivating those folks to make a better product.

“But we need the current laws to protect the little guys!”, they might say. Well, what about other markets? I’d like to make a breakfast cereal called Ryan’s Raisin Flakes, which would be made here in Washington. However, I can’t compete with Kellogg’s and Post for shelf space, and their prices are far lower than I can sell my cereal for.

Should we make some new protectionist cereal laws so that I can employ 20 people to make Ryan’s Raisin Flakes? Should the state start opening breakfast cereal stores, and restricting wholesale cereal prices so I can compete? If you said no, then please tell us why you don’t support jobs in Washington.

And that’s the biggest argument you hear whenever a protectionist law is lifted; “We’re going to lose jobs in our state”. Yup, we probably will. But are those jobs worth saving? They’re artificially supported by higher prices charged to you and me, which are more like hidden taxes.

Take the price on Malibu Rum, for example. The 1.75 liter bottle is $33.95 in Washington, but only $16.99 in a Las Vegas Costco (it helps that the liquor tax is only 61 cents in Nevada, versus $11.24 in Washington). Even while ignoring the liquor tax, we’re effectively paying an extra $6 per bottle to subsidize this system.

That $6 isn’t being spent at Taco Time, supporting a job there. If Costco opened a liquor department, they’d have to hire people to stock the shelves, more cashiers to process sales, and a department manager for each store. What about those jobs?

You can tell that I’m in favor of this initiative, but please research it and decide for yourself. And remember, public safety and health are not at risk here; this whole issue is only about money. Where do you want your money to go?