The emotions of 1183

Initiative 1183 will be on the ballot in the State of Washington in November, 2011.  There has been a heavy saturation of television across the state with 30-second ad spots both in favor of the initiative and in opposition. Within a span of about 2 hours, I saw at least four of these on one cable channel during prime-time.  Both the opposition and the proponents seem to be desperate to build a strong case for their views, to the extent that their television spots are borderline with respect to accuracy of information presented.

According to BallotPedia.org , the main supporters of this initiative are large retailers (Costco, Safeway, Trader Joe's), and the main opposition to the initiative are unions, public safety associations, and alcoholic beverage distributors.  Both sides have framed the issue toward their supporters. 

Recurring themes reiterated in the "Yes" campaign include:

• Smaller Government (get the state out of the liquor sales business)
• Public Safety (more money will be channeled to local fire and police departments)
• Free Market Solution (prevent "state monopoly pricing)
• Lower cost (wholesale and retail price competition)

Recurring themes reiterated in the "No" Campaign include:

• Fair Competition (big box retailers would have an unfair advantage in selling liquor by bypassing distributors, small grocers would not be allowed to sell liquor, therefore would be at a disadvantage to fair market practices)
• Public Safety (privatization of liquor sales greatly expands access of alcohol to minors)
• Funneling profits to big corporations (deregulation of pricing would result in increased costs to consumers and small restaurants)

The following ads square off against each other, both starring public safety officials.  the opposition ad sspot emphasizes the fear of increased alcohol use by teens as a result of the sale of alcoholic beverages by retailers frequented by young people. 

This "Yes on 1183" ad also features public safety officials.  The focus of this ad is an appeal to the increase of revenue directly to public safety entities across the state.  The implication is that public safety organizations support this measure, whereas in truth, those appearing in the ad are mainly former officials and retired.  The ad is effective in raising doubt in the minds of viewers as to which side of the fence law enforcement and other public safety organizations sit.

This campaign has become so volatile that it has caught the attention of news organizations to unravel the untruths and misdirection, as evidenced by the following clip from King5 TV, Seattle.  Voters in Washington should really do their homework before voting on this measure.  There seems to be some unfair consequences resulting from an idea that is in the long run probably good for the state and its citizens.