The role of government in the sale of alcohol is a touchy subject, economically speaking. Many conservatives and libertarians find the idea of any government regulation offensive and economically inefficient. 'Let the markets regulate themselves' remains as much the rallying cry for many in the fast growth modern era as it did 100 years ago.

However, last week's closure of Tommy's Nightclub on the Ave has sparked plenty of controversy over what the city of Seattle's role should be in offering liquor licenses.

The state of Washington's Liquor Control Board issues all licenses for the sale of liquor but there has been wide speculation in The Seattle Times, Stranger and P.I. that Mayor Greg Nickels would also like the city to issue liquor licenses for establishments within Seattle.

The question of whether Nickels and city hall should be put in charge of liquor licensing is a question of democratic politics. Put succinctly: big, medium, small or no government?

The 'big' is simple and old history; during the 1920s, the U.S. government controlled the sale of alcohol. The medium — after prohibition, states took over and, in the case of Washington, still control the issuing of liquor licenses through the Washington State Liquor Control Broad in Olympia. The 'small' would be the city of Seattle dictating who could sell liquor and the 'no government' is what most conservatives and libertarians would favor (economically).

To resolve this issue, Seattle should notice that the nice thing about alcohol is that it's a luxury. No one needs to drink to stay healthy, so why not simply charge more for the pleasure and impose a city-wide alcohol tax?

The licensing fees collected by the state or city (if Nickels gets his way) will decrease as fewer people will be able to afford the bar experience, leading to fewer licensing requests. But people will still find a place to drink with friends and in the process, save money by not having to pay $4-5 a pint or $7-10 for a mixed drink.

The problem at Tommy's wasn't simply that they were cited six times for servicing already drunk customers, or once for "disorderly conduct," or once for allowing entrance to a minor, it was that Tommy's was unsafe.

With an alcohol tax, there will be fewer people who can afford to get drunk enough at bars to start fights (or shoot people), thus making bars safer and less expensive to police Seattle. Hell, with the added revenue of an alcohol tax, conservatives and libertarians could also get a tax cut out of it.

[Reach columnist Jake Sommer at opinion@thedaily.washington.edu.]