State should relinquish its monopoly on hard spirits

FOR more than a decade, Sen. Tim Sheldon, D-Potlatch, has been introducing a bill every year to privatize the state liquor stores. Last week, his bill finally had a hearing — a sign, we hope, that legislators will consider this common-sense idea.

All states have age and other restrictions on the sale of liquor. Only one-quarter of Americans live under state governments that retain a monopoly on wholesaling or retailing of spirits. Washington does both.

In the early 20th century, Washington prohibited liquor early and gave it up reluctantly, and today's rules are a legacy of that. Not until the late 1940s was it lawful here for a lounge to sell liquor by the drink, and not until the late 1960s could a woman sit at the bar.

Washington needs reasonable alcohol regulation, but there is no need for this state to treat adults like children. And make no mistake — the argument for the state liquor monopoly is not mainly about government revenue, which can be had under any system, or about the number of jobs. It is about social control.

At last week's hearing, supporters argued that monopoly is good because the public will drink less if spirits remain high-priced and inconvenient.

That's not the right way to control liquor. It penalizes everyone.

Sheldon said he is flexible on how to privatize liquor, and that's good because his bill is not the right way to solve the problem. It would auction off the state stores to private owners, still keeping everyone else out of the business. That would swap one monopoly for another. The private retailers testified against this, and they are right.

Washington needs a system of private liquor retailing with rules, licenses, taxes and supervision. Any retailer who can meet a set of reasonable requirements and keep a clean record should be allowed to sell. This is the way it is done in many other states, and there is no reason for the public to fear it.