Double boogers. 5/10.
I voted for this and would do so again. The state had no business to be in the liquor business in the first place. State run liquor is merely a remnant of prohibition. The argument you made is framed under privatization, but it doesn't make sense here, because liquor is a retail business, not a function of government. If my taxes went towards universal intoxication for all citizens (human rights violation to have to confront life's problems sober) and that got more expensive when privatized, then you would have an argument.
Even if Freddie's does a huge markup, I can shop elsewhere. Prices will come down when more players get in. Why be limited to making special trips to dirty stores with lame hours and surly employees.
So, this is an example where privatization costs the public much more in the short run, AND increases the likelihood of an income tax, which will cost the public much more in the long run.
We need to confront the need to feed government, not just look for ways to satisfy the beast whenever it is hungry.