The Beer Store isn’t nanny state, it’s not owned by the Ontario government.
IMI that is part of why the Ontario owned LCBO actually has a decent selection compared to the beer store. The beer store has a near monopoly with no reason to improve service, while we in Ontario actually own the LCBO and it has a vested interest in decent service.
So while the beer store sucks, it’s not likely that beer selection will get any better if corner stores started carrying beers (just look at Quebec, even before moving to Ontario I often still bought my beer at the LCBO because they had a much better selection)
If Ford is able to do this while not reducing the tex income we make from the sales, I don’t really care. But I won’t hold my breath on that one
We have great micro brews in corner stores and grocery stores. Plus we have some specialized beers stores with truly great selections and expert staff.
Maybe but Ford has been consistently cutting revenue while consistently raising spending
It’s not sustainable
Kind of like how he was planning to crash our power grid in 2026 but once he started feeling like there was a chance of him winning again, he’s started rolling back those changes. (Including extending the life of the Pickering plant)
I’m not in favour of making it available in more places. I just think that government involvement in things like alcohol, pot, gambling and other common human addictions should be revenue neutral, so there are not perverse incentives for the state to exploit the minority of humans that have extreme addiction problems.
There is nothing weird about opposing human suffering.
One of the arguments for the taxes on drugs like alcohol is to offset the healthcare costs incurred by people partaking in them.
The government could make the decision to restrict the sale and lower their “income”, but balance it out with there being less costs in terms of healthcare.
If we move the sale to the private sector, there is no motivation other than profit. Which usually means to sell as much as possible.
Unless the private sector brings in as much (or more) tax revenue as the public sector, then the only difference is that it (likely) becomes harder to regulate. And if there is less tax dollars coming in, we’ll have poorer outcomes, healthwise.
Basically, the government can say “If you want this, you need to pay in advance for your healthcare”. Whereas the private sector doesn’t care one bit as long as the money is coming in.
I don’t understand making the argument that the government shouldn’t sell alcohol, but the private sector should be allowed to. It just sounds contradictory to any good faith argument that I can imagine.
Meh. I’m no fan of ford but the Beer Store is an oligopoly that needs to be toppled. It’s incredibly inconvenient nanny state bullshit
The Beer Store isn’t nanny state, it’s not owned by the Ontario government.
IMI that is part of why the Ontario owned LCBO actually has a decent selection compared to the beer store. The beer store has a near monopoly with no reason to improve service, while we in Ontario actually own the LCBO and it has a vested interest in decent service.
So while the beer store sucks, it’s not likely that beer selection will get any better if corner stores started carrying beers (just look at Quebec, even before moving to Ontario I often still bought my beer at the LCBO because they had a much better selection)
If Ford is able to do this while not reducing the tex income we make from the sales, I don’t really care. But I won’t hold my breath on that one
I would be FAR from shocked if the ( voluntary ) loss of revenue conveniently comes out of the remaining important infrastructure.
I wonder if they would still try to blame covid lmao.
There isn’t much that gets me angry, but that type of stunt makes me bloody furious.
We have great micro brews in corner stores and grocery stores. Plus we have some specialized beers stores with truly great selections and expert staff.
The issue is whether this hurts provincial revenue or not
The less revenue the state takes from the disease and misfortune of its citizens, the better.
Maybe but Ford has been consistently cutting revenue while consistently raising spending
It’s not sustainable
Kind of like how he was planning to crash our power grid in 2026 but once he started feeling like there was a chance of him winning again, he’s started rolling back those changes. (Including extending the life of the Pickering plant)
Exploiting addiction is not sustainable for those who are exploited.
So you are in favour of making it available in more places
But are trying some weird anti-alcohol high road
I’m not in favour of making it available in more places. I just think that government involvement in things like alcohol, pot, gambling and other common human addictions should be revenue neutral, so there are not perverse incentives for the state to exploit the minority of humans that have extreme addiction problems.
There is nothing weird about opposing human suffering.
I can’t tell if you’re being disingenuous.
One of the arguments for the taxes on drugs like alcohol is to offset the healthcare costs incurred by people partaking in them.
The government could make the decision to restrict the sale and lower their “income”, but balance it out with there being less costs in terms of healthcare.
If we move the sale to the private sector, there is no motivation other than profit. Which usually means to sell as much as possible.
Unless the private sector brings in as much (or more) tax revenue as the public sector, then the only difference is that it (likely) becomes harder to regulate. And if there is less tax dollars coming in, we’ll have poorer outcomes, healthwise.
Basically, the government can say “If you want this, you need to pay in advance for your healthcare”. Whereas the private sector doesn’t care one bit as long as the money is coming in.
I don’t understand making the argument that the government shouldn’t sell alcohol, but the private sector should be allowed to. It just sounds contradictory to any good faith argument that I can imagine.