So apparently Ontario's getting some relaxed provisions around beer distribution. Something like 450 supermarkets will be able to carry singles and six packs, LCBOs will be piloting twelve packs, relaxed rules around breweries selling from their property, a new beer tax, and growlers available at the LCBO. Beer store required to provide 20% of shelf space to provincial craft brewers (current amount is around 7%). It's not perfect, but it's a start.
Baby step in the right direction is still a step in the right direction.
First, rather than encouraging increased spending, government subsidies represent the majority of financing for film and television production. In 2010, tax credits, grants and other public funding mechanisms subsidized approximately 60 per cent of all Ontario-based film and television production spending. Moreover, the corporations that claim tax credits pay no tax at all, with the total value of the tax credits being six times greater than the total tax income of domestic claimants.
Second, the sector is becoming more dependent on government support. In 1998, film tax credit expenditures constituted 6 per cent of production costs. Ten years later, there were fewer productions in Ontario, but the film tax credit expenditures were responsible for 30 per cent of the costs.
Third, the mounting government expenditures might be justified if it resulted in the creation of long-term high paying jobs. However, the Ontario government study found that film sector wages were below the provincial average and that many of those jobs were temporary, project-based ones.
Fourth, evidence suggests that other factors beyond tax incentives play a key role in determining the location of production activity. For example, the Ontario experience over the past two decades shows that foreign production is typically highest when the Canadian dollar is low relative to the U.S. dollar.
Ontario and Nova Scotia are two very different provinces with two very different sets of circumstances.
It also sounds like our tax credit and Ontario's system went about things in very different ways.
In Nova Scotia, the return on investment for the government with this credit is about $4-5 gained for every $1 spent. In 2013, the credit amounted to about $24 million spent, and brought in about $133 million.
The credit is certainly open to reevaluation, but excuse me if I'm not open to the idea of scrapping it and using Nova Scotia as a test case just because some dude I've never heard of in Ontario has a theory.
So apparently Ontario's getting some relaxed provisions around beer distribution. Something like 450 supermarkets will be able to carry singles and six packs, LCBOs will be piloting twelve packs, relaxed rules around breweries selling from their property, a new beer tax, and growlers available at the LCBO. Beer store required to provide 20% of shelf space to provincial craft brewers (current amount is around 7%). It's not perfect, but it's a start.
Which is helpful when all LCBOs decide to close two hours early because, fuck you, that's why
So apparently Ontario's getting some relaxed provisions around beer distribution. Something like 450 supermarkets will be able to carry singles and six packs, LCBOs will be piloting twelve packs, relaxed rules around breweries selling from their property, a new beer tax, and growlers available at the LCBO. Beer store required to provide 20% of shelf space to provincial craft brewers (current amount is around 7%). It's not perfect, but it's a start.
Baby step in the right direction is still a step in the right direction.
I just feel bad for the convenience stores. They really want to sell alcohol, and they were shut out of this one.
I'm also curious how supermarkets carrying booze will affect the fact that a lot of supermarket checkers are under 19.
Want to find me on a gaming service? I'm SwashbucklerXX everywhere.
I personally like that alcohol isn't sold in just any store (I don't like dealing with alcohol drinkers in my retail jobs) and I find the selection and staff expertise at the BC Liquor stores to be far more helpful than the Beer & Wine stores who often seem to have far more turn over in their staff, even if they are open later.
So please explain why this is a step in the right direction for Ontario, my perspective over here in BC makes it seem like a step in the wrong direction, so I would appreciate an argument that enlightens me on the subject.
I personally like that alcohol isn't sold in just any store (I don't like dealing with alcohol drinkers in my retail jobs) and I find the selection and staff expertise at the BC Liquor stores to be far more helpful than the Beer & Wine stores who often seem to have far more turn over in their staff, even if they are open later.
So please explain why this is a step in the right direction for Ontario, my perspective over here in BC makes it seem like a step in the wrong direction, so I would appreciate an argument that enlightens me on the subject.
1. Convenience for customers. Alcohol isn't this magical thing that should be sheltered from regular foods and isolated in its own special stores. It's groceries. It should be sold wherever groceries are sold. Grocery stores, convenience stores, you name it. This isn't to say that liquor stores should be banned (they shouldn't, they serve a useful function to sell more specialized products just like any specialty grocery store) but alcohol sale should not be confined to those stores alone. How annoying would it be if all groceries were sold like this? Go to one store to buy your bread, then drive to another store two streets down for your milk, then drive to another store for cheese, then halfway across town to the butcher store... we'd spend two days driving around doing grocery shopping! All basic food stuff in one store is a massive convenience, and alcohol is a food stuff like any other.
2. More opportunities for micro-breweries. At present micro-breweries are legally limited to selling their beer at their brewery stores only. Anything else has to go through the LCBO or the Beer Store - and the latter is controlled by large labels and has been strangling the micro-brew industry for years by limiting the selection they can sell or outright refusing to sell their products. Allowing beer producers to bypass them and distribute directly through grocery stores will be a huge boom to the Ontario beer industry.
3. More money in the Ontario economy. The Beer Store, that private company that holds a monopoly on beer sales in Ontario outside of the LCBO? It's owned by foreign large labels. Which means all the profits from Ontario beer sales are moved to other countries, and we're left with the tab (in the form of the social ills of alcohol abuse, which shockingly those international companies are refusing to help us pay for with the profits they made from our alcohol sales). Again, local grocery stores and (someday) convenience stores breaking the Beer Store monopoly and keeping these profits in Ontario can only have positive outcomes.
+6
Options
El SkidThe frozen white northRegistered Userregular
Living in Ottawa it's also pretty jarring- across the river even convenience stores sell alcohol, and it's no big deal. But on this side of the river there's a really hardcore lock down. It just doesn't seem really useful or necessary.
Its really the Beer Store that we have a problem with in Ontario, I think, and not the LCBO.
Personally, I quite like the LCBO. Booze in Ontario is pricey, but the LCBO has good selection, knowledgeable staff and a nice/clean/pleasant retail space to shop in. Also, since they're the only game in town for booze and wine...they will get you ANYTHING you request as long as its a shippable quantity. (ie: that fancy wine you had in Australia on vacation two years ago? As long as you are willing to take a whole case of it....they'll bring it in for you, no problem.)
Its Beer...and I think larger quantities of Beer...that really get people riled up. Joe McLikesabeer who buys a 2-4 of Molson on the weekends really would rather do it at the same place he buys all his other stuff for the weekend. The Beer Store has had a sweet deal for a very long time, and until the past few years very few people knew that it was a foreign owned private company. They also have a habit of putting up barriers to the local craft/micro brewers out there who want their product on store shelves.
Yeah I have no problems with the LCBO. The hours aren't great, but other than that I much prefer them to the Beer Store - a vastly better selection, nicer stores, knowledgeable staff
I'll take whatever will continue to invigorate the Ontario craft brewing industry. At this point in time, I can find far more accessible, affordable, and specialized product going over the border to Michigan than here, and that's just stupid.
Yeah I have no problems with the LCBO. The hours aren't great, but other than that I much prefer them to the Beer Store - a vastly better selection, nicer stores, knowledgeable staff
The hours of the LCBOs near me were pretty good when I lived in Toronto.
Yeah I have no problems with the LCBO. The hours aren't great, but other than that I much prefer them to the Beer Store - a vastly better selection, nicer stores, knowledgeable staff
The hours of the LCBOs near me were pretty good when I lived in Toronto.
Oh it's not bad, I was just used to growing up in NF, where all the liquor stores in St. John's are 10-10 every day, but the closest one to me now is only open after 6 on thursday/friday
Yeah I have no problems with the LCBO. The hours aren't great, but other than that I much prefer them to the Beer Store - a vastly better selection, nicer stores, knowledgeable staff
The hours of the LCBOs near me were pretty good when I lived in Toronto.
Oh it's not bad, I was just used to growing up in NF, where all the liquor stores in St. John's are 10-10 every day, but the closest one to me now is only open after 6 on thursday/friday
Ones near me were all open till 9pm except on Sundays.
Armed U.S. border guards could soon be posted to Union Station — and if they ever use their guns, they may not be held accountable in a Canadian court.
A border preclearance agreement signed last month by Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney and U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson allows for armed American border guards to be posted to any port, ferry terminal, land crossing or rail station to clear goods and passengers through customs and immigration before they cross the border.
While U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers now preclear passengers at eight Canadian airports including Pearson, only police may carry firearms in airports, so border agents stationed there aren’t armed. The deal is promoted as a measure to facilitate trade and benefit the economy on both sides of the border, but critics say little notice has been taken of the clause that grants U.S. agents immunity from Canadian prosecution.
“If U.S. government agents who are on duty on Canadian soil are only going to be liable to be prosecuted in the United States for potential criminal acts in Canada, what does that mean for access to justice for people affected by those actions?” asked Josh Paterson, executive director of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association.
“Is a Canadian really going to be able to access whatever system of redress that might exist in the United States for actions that take place here in Canada? Is the U.S. criminal justice system going to deal seriously with alleged offences committed by their agents here in Canada? We just don’t know.
“If they’re being told that they are allowed to carry weapons in Canada, the only thing you can surmise from that is that it’s anticipated that they may be using force in Canada,” he said.
Details of the agreement, which hasn’t been made public, are limited. The number of U.S. guards coming to Canada and where they will be posted will be determined by “the market” and subject to approval by both countries, said Public Safety Canada’s spokesperson Josée Sirois.
“U.S. CBP preclearance officers would be authorized to carry the same weapons and restraint devices that (Canadian) border officers are permitted to carry in the same operating environment,” Sirois wrote in an email. “That means that they would be able to carry a sidearm in land, rail and marine preclearance operations, but not when pre-clearing air travel passengers.”
U.S. guards would not be permitted to make arrests, she said, and would instead detain suspects temporarily and call local police.
According to a backgrounder posted on Public Safety Canada’s website, the agreement creates a new criminal-liability regime applying to both U.S. and Canadian preclearance officers. “Generally speaking, the inspecting party would have primary jurisdiction over its preclearance officers for offenses committed in the performance of official duties. Generally speaking, the host country would have primary criminal jurisdiction over acts committed by preclearance officers outside the performance of official duties,” states the backgrounder.
The deal won’t come into effect until both countries ratify it, which Canada aims to complete next year. “Both Canada and the U.S. recognize the importance of maintaining accountability for preclearance officers who may commit crimes in the host country, and appropriately holding those individuals accountable,” wrote Blaney’s spokesperson, Jean-Christophe De Le Rue, in an email.
Legal scholars worry about the ramifications of the agreement, though none of those contacted by the Star would offer an opinion without seeing more details of the deal. Paterson, however, pointed out that existing legislation governing airport preclearance doesn’t give an American officer in Canada jurisdiction over a traveller.
“They can’t use force against you. The most that they can do while you’re still on Canadian soil is refuse you entry to the United States. If you want to walk away, you can walk away. Now we’re contemplating that they may be able to use potentially lethal force?” he said.
In the coming months, the Canadian government will brief police and industry stakeholders and ask for input, though the level of detail provided is unclear. “There’s tons of questions that have been arising,” said Jean-Pierre Fortin, national president of the Customs and Immigration Union in Canada. “They’re keeping their cards close to their chest.”
Fortin had no details on how train preclearance would work, and speculated that officers might be placed in stations or they might be put on trains themselves.
While the deal is reciprocal and allows for Canadian border guards in the U.S., the current airport-only preclearance arrangement — which has existed in various forms for over 60 years — has only ever been implemented north of the border.
Armed U.S. border guards could soon be posted to Union Station — and if they ever use their guns, they may not be held accountable in a Canadian court.
A border preclearance agreement signed last month by Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney and U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson allows for armed American border guards to be posted to any port, ferry terminal, land crossing or rail station to clear goods and passengers through customs and immigration before they cross the border.
While U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers now preclear passengers at eight Canadian airports including Pearson, only police may carry firearms in airports, so border agents stationed there aren’t armed. The deal is promoted as a measure to facilitate trade and benefit the economy on both sides of the border, but critics say little notice has been taken of the clause that grants U.S. agents immunity from Canadian prosecution.
“If U.S. government agents who are on duty on Canadian soil are only going to be liable to be prosecuted in the United States for potential criminal acts in Canada, what does that mean for access to justice for people affected by those actions?” asked Josh Paterson, executive director of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association.
“Is a Canadian really going to be able to access whatever system of redress that might exist in the United States for actions that take place here in Canada? Is the U.S. criminal justice system going to deal seriously with alleged offences committed by their agents here in Canada? We just don’t know.
“If they’re being told that they are allowed to carry weapons in Canada, the only thing you can surmise from that is that it’s anticipated that they may be using force in Canada,” he said.
Details of the agreement, which hasn’t been made public, are limited. The number of U.S. guards coming to Canada and where they will be posted will be determined by “the market” and subject to approval by both countries, said Public Safety Canada’s spokesperson Josée Sirois.
“U.S. CBP preclearance officers would be authorized to carry the same weapons and restraint devices that (Canadian) border officers are permitted to carry in the same operating environment,” Sirois wrote in an email. “That means that they would be able to carry a sidearm in land, rail and marine preclearance operations, but not when pre-clearing air travel passengers.”
U.S. guards would not be permitted to make arrests, she said, and would instead detain suspects temporarily and call local police.
According to a backgrounder posted on Public Safety Canada’s website, the agreement creates a new criminal-liability regime applying to both U.S. and Canadian preclearance officers. “Generally speaking, the inspecting party would have primary jurisdiction over its preclearance officers for offenses committed in the performance of official duties. Generally speaking, the host country would have primary criminal jurisdiction over acts committed by preclearance officers outside the performance of official duties,” states the backgrounder.
The deal won’t come into effect until both countries ratify it, which Canada aims to complete next year. “Both Canada and the U.S. recognize the importance of maintaining accountability for preclearance officers who may commit crimes in the host country, and appropriately holding those individuals accountable,” wrote Blaney’s spokesperson, Jean-Christophe De Le Rue, in an email.
Legal scholars worry about the ramifications of the agreement, though none of those contacted by the Star would offer an opinion without seeing more details of the deal. Paterson, however, pointed out that existing legislation governing airport preclearance doesn’t give an American officer in Canada jurisdiction over a traveller.
“They can’t use force against you. The most that they can do while you’re still on Canadian soil is refuse you entry to the United States. If you want to walk away, you can walk away. Now we’re contemplating that they may be able to use potentially lethal force?” he said.
In the coming months, the Canadian government will brief police and industry stakeholders and ask for input, though the level of detail provided is unclear. “There’s tons of questions that have been arising,” said Jean-Pierre Fortin, national president of the Customs and Immigration Union in Canada. “They’re keeping their cards close to their chest.”
Fortin had no details on how train preclearance would work, and speculated that officers might be placed in stations or they might be put on trains themselves.
While the deal is reciprocal and allows for Canadian border guards in the U.S., the current airport-only preclearance arrangement — which has existed in various forms for over 60 years — has only ever been implemented north of the border.
JMFC.
Yeah, I am super not okay with this. Having armed personnel from another country stationed within our borders sounds terrible, and the lack of accountability in this jurisdiction sounds downright horrifying.
This just sounds like a horrible incident waiting to happen. How the hell does something like this get the green light?
This Alberta Election debate is crazy. Anyone else watching?
Nope. What's going on?
Brian Jean is a tax robot, who literally cannot say anything but that taxes need to be lowered
Jim Prentice cannot pronounce Rachel Notley's name, but is also essentially ignoring everyone but her. He also looks very defensive. He said to Notely at one point "look, I know math is hard" which is going to bite him in the ass all campaign long.
Yeah, I am super not okay with this. Having armed personnel from another country stationed within our borders sounds terrible, and the lack of accountability in this jurisdiction sounds downright horrifying.
This just sounds like a horrible incident waiting to happen. How the hell does something like this get the green light?
Because we have a Prime Minister who literally hates Canada and who pledged "you won't recognize it by the time I'm done with it".
Yeah, I am super not okay with this. Having armed personnel from another country stationed within our borders sounds terrible, and the lack of accountability in this jurisdiction sounds downright horrifying.
This just sounds like a horrible incident waiting to happen. How the hell does something like this get the green light?
Because we have a Prime Minister who literally hates Canada and who pledged "you won't recognize it by the time I'm done with it".
Yeah, I guess the sentiment of 'how could this happen' was a bit rhetorical. It's downright depressing how obvious the actual answer is.
Lois Lilienstein, of Sharon, Lois, and Bram fame, has passed away.
I remember watching that show, and still have some tapes of their performances. Told my boyfriend, and despite having not seen the TV show in at least 20 years, we both automatically began 'signing' Skinnermerinkydinkydink
Lois Lilienstein, of Sharon, Lois, and Bram fame, has passed away.
I remember watching that show, and still have some tapes of their performances. Told my boyfriend, and despite having not seen the TV show in at least 20 years, we both automatically began 'signing' Skinnermerinkydinkydink
Saw them when I was a kid at a boys and girls club event. I got to go onstage and dance with the elephant!
All three of them have such a love of children. She will be missed...
You gotta admit, it's at least refreshingly honest for his generation to straight up admit their whole plan is to do whatever they want and fuck the next generation.
I personally like that alcohol isn't sold in just any store (I don't like dealing with alcohol drinkers in my retail jobs) and I find the selection and staff expertise at the BC Liquor stores to be far more helpful than the Beer & Wine stores who often seem to have far more turn over in their staff, even if they are open later.
So please explain why this is a step in the right direction for Ontario, my perspective over here in BC makes it seem like a step in the wrong direction, so I would appreciate an argument that enlightens me on the subject.
1. Convenience for customers. Alcohol isn't this magical thing that should be sheltered from regular foods and isolated in its own special stores. It's groceries. It should be sold wherever groceries are sold. Grocery stores, convenience stores, you name it. This isn't to say that liquor stores should be banned (they shouldn't, they serve a useful function to sell more specialized products just like any specialty grocery store) but alcohol sale should not be confined to those stores alone. How annoying would it be if all groceries were sold like this? Go to one store to buy your bread, then drive to another store two streets down for your milk, then drive to another store for cheese, then halfway across town to the butcher store... we'd spend two days driving around doing grocery shopping! All basic food stuff in one store is a massive convenience, and alcohol is a food stuff like any other.
2. More opportunities for micro-breweries. At present micro-breweries are legally limited to selling their beer at their brewery stores only. Anything else has to go through the LCBO or the Beer Store - and the latter is controlled by large labels and has been strangling the micro-brew industry for years by limiting the selection they can sell or outright refusing to sell their products. Allowing beer producers to bypass them and distribute directly through grocery stores will be a huge boom to the Ontario beer industry.
3. More money in the Ontario economy. The Beer Store, that private company that holds a monopoly on beer sales in Ontario outside of the LCBO? It's owned by foreign large labels. Which means all the profits from Ontario beer sales are moved to other countries, and we're left with the tab (in the form of the social ills of alcohol abuse, which shockingly those international companies are refusing to help us pay for with the profits they made from our alcohol sales). Again, local grocery stores and (someday) convenience stores breaking the Beer Store monopoly and keeping these profits in Ontario can only have positive outcomes.
I have said this in this very thread before, but there is a massive base of medical evidence that making alcohol more available (i.e. increasing hours of sale, number of stores, or in this case selling it in grocery stores) WILL increase alcoholism rates noticeably. This is a well-known and irrefutable fact of public health. You can talk about Europe's alcoholism rates being lower, and they are, but that is due to extrinsic cultural factors. It has been proven that in North America, if you widen liquor distribution, alcoholism rates will go up. I don't think that a teeny bit more convenience for me (yes, I can finally impulse-by that 24 pack of beer rather than having to drive 2 blocks to the liquor store) is worth that cost.
I personally like that alcohol isn't sold in just any store (I don't like dealing with alcohol drinkers in my retail jobs) and I find the selection and staff expertise at the BC Liquor stores to be far more helpful than the Beer & Wine stores who often seem to have far more turn over in their staff, even if they are open later.
So please explain why this is a step in the right direction for Ontario, my perspective over here in BC makes it seem like a step in the wrong direction, so I would appreciate an argument that enlightens me on the subject.
1. Convenience for customers. Alcohol isn't this magical thing that should be sheltered from regular foods and isolated in its own special stores. It's groceries. It should be sold wherever groceries are sold. Grocery stores, convenience stores, you name it. This isn't to say that liquor stores should be banned (they shouldn't, they serve a useful function to sell more specialized products just like any specialty grocery store) but alcohol sale should not be confined to those stores alone. How annoying would it be if all groceries were sold like this? Go to one store to buy your bread, then drive to another store two streets down for your milk, then drive to another store for cheese, then halfway across town to the butcher store... we'd spend two days driving around doing grocery shopping! All basic food stuff in one store is a massive convenience, and alcohol is a food stuff like any other.
2. More opportunities for micro-breweries. At present micro-breweries are legally limited to selling their beer at their brewery stores only. Anything else has to go through the LCBO or the Beer Store - and the latter is controlled by large labels and has been strangling the micro-brew industry for years by limiting the selection they can sell or outright refusing to sell their products. Allowing beer producers to bypass them and distribute directly through grocery stores will be a huge boom to the Ontario beer industry.
3. More money in the Ontario economy. The Beer Store, that private company that holds a monopoly on beer sales in Ontario outside of the LCBO? It's owned by foreign large labels. Which means all the profits from Ontario beer sales are moved to other countries, and we're left with the tab (in the form of the social ills of alcohol abuse, which shockingly those international companies are refusing to help us pay for with the profits they made from our alcohol sales). Again, local grocery stores and (someday) convenience stores breaking the Beer Store monopoly and keeping these profits in Ontario can only have positive outcomes.
I have said this in this very thread before, but there is a massive base of medical evidence that making alcohol more available (i.e. increasing hours of sale, number of stores, or in this case selling it in grocery stores) WILL increase alcoholism rates noticeably. This is a well-known and irrefutable fact of public health. You can talk about Europe's alcoholism rates being lower, and they are, but that is due to extrinsic cultural factors. It has been proven that in North America, if you widen liquor distribution, alcoholism rates will go up. I don't think that a teeny bit more convenience for me (yes, I can finally impulse-by that 24 pack of beer rather than having to drive 2 blocks to the liquor store) is worth that cost.
Ontario has a heavy drinking rate of 12.8%. Québec, where the drinking age is one year lower and enforced really weakly and where alcohol is sold much more widely and social attitudes towards alcohol consumption are much more liberal, has a heavy drinking rate of 15.6%. This 2.8% increase is the "noticeable" difference you're using to justify Ontario's draconian alcohol sale policies. I'm not even sure it's out of the error range for the survey (I can't find it on the page, if anyone can that'd be great).
I'll take convenience and the economic boost to the province over a 2.8% decrease in heavy drinking.
Ontario and Quebec have nearly identical alcohol consumption rate. So I doubt that this voodoo prohibition is doing much other than making it a pain in the ass for everyone.
I personally like that alcohol isn't sold in just any store (I don't like dealing with alcohol drinkers in my retail jobs) and I find the selection and staff expertise at the BC Liquor stores to be far more helpful than the Beer & Wine stores who often seem to have far more turn over in their staff, even if they are open later.
So please explain why this is a step in the right direction for Ontario, my perspective over here in BC makes it seem like a step in the wrong direction, so I would appreciate an argument that enlightens me on the subject.
1. Convenience for customers. Alcohol isn't this magical thing that should be sheltered from regular foods and isolated in its own special stores. It's groceries. It should be sold wherever groceries are sold. Grocery stores, convenience stores, you name it. This isn't to say that liquor stores should be banned (they shouldn't, they serve a useful function to sell more specialized products just like any specialty grocery store) but alcohol sale should not be confined to those stores alone. How annoying would it be if all groceries were sold like this? Go to one store to buy your bread, then drive to another store two streets down for your milk, then drive to another store for cheese, then halfway across town to the butcher store... we'd spend two days driving around doing grocery shopping! All basic food stuff in one store is a massive convenience, and alcohol is a food stuff like any other.
2. More opportunities for micro-breweries. At present micro-breweries are legally limited to selling their beer at their brewery stores only. Anything else has to go through the LCBO or the Beer Store - and the latter is controlled by large labels and has been strangling the micro-brew industry for years by limiting the selection they can sell or outright refusing to sell their products. Allowing beer producers to bypass them and distribute directly through grocery stores will be a huge boom to the Ontario beer industry.
3. More money in the Ontario economy. The Beer Store, that private company that holds a monopoly on beer sales in Ontario outside of the LCBO? It's owned by foreign large labels. Which means all the profits from Ontario beer sales are moved to other countries, and we're left with the tab (in the form of the social ills of alcohol abuse, which shockingly those international companies are refusing to help us pay for with the profits they made from our alcohol sales). Again, local grocery stores and (someday) convenience stores breaking the Beer Store monopoly and keeping these profits in Ontario can only have positive outcomes.
I have said this in this very thread before, but there is a massive base of medical evidence that making alcohol more available (i.e. increasing hours of sale, number of stores, or in this case selling it in grocery stores) WILL increase alcoholism rates noticeably. This is a well-known and irrefutable fact of public health. You can talk about Europe's alcoholism rates being lower, and they are, but that is due to extrinsic cultural factors. It has been proven that in North America, if you widen liquor distribution, alcoholism rates will go up. I don't think that a teeny bit more convenience for me (yes, I can finally impulse-by that 24 pack of beer rather than having to drive 2 blocks to the liquor store) is worth that cost.
Ontario has a heavy drinking rate of 12.8%. Québec, where the drinking age is one year lower and enforced really weakly and where alcohol is sold much more widely and social attitudes towards alcohol consumption are much more liberal, has a heavy drinking rate of 15.6%. This 2.8% increase is the "noticeable" difference you're using to justify Ontario's draconian alcohol sale policies. I'm not even sure it's out of the error range for the survey (I can't find it on the page, if anyone can that'd be great).
I'll take convenience and the economic boost to the province over a 2.8% decrease in heavy drinking.
Just anecdotal but it's one of the most striking difference to me culturally between Quebec where I grew up to Alberta. Quebec drinks to drink . Alberta drinks to get shit-faced drunk.
I personally believe that having liquor stores open to 2 a.m. is a contributing factor. I can't go to a liquor store past 8p.m. without having to deal with intoxicated patrons. Not a problem i remember having at the SAQ.
I personally like that alcohol isn't sold in just any store (I don't like dealing with alcohol drinkers in my retail jobs) and I find the selection and staff expertise at the BC Liquor stores to be far more helpful than the Beer & Wine stores who often seem to have far more turn over in their staff, even if they are open later.
So please explain why this is a step in the right direction for Ontario, my perspective over here in BC makes it seem like a step in the wrong direction, so I would appreciate an argument that enlightens me on the subject.
1. Convenience for customers. Alcohol isn't this magical thing that should be sheltered from regular foods and isolated in its own special stores. It's groceries. It should be sold wherever groceries are sold. Grocery stores, convenience stores, you name it. This isn't to say that liquor stores should be banned (they shouldn't, they serve a useful function to sell more specialized products just like any specialty grocery store) but alcohol sale should not be confined to those stores alone. How annoying would it be if all groceries were sold like this? Go to one store to buy your bread, then drive to another store two streets down for your milk, then drive to another store for cheese, then halfway across town to the butcher store... we'd spend two days driving around doing grocery shopping! All basic food stuff in one store is a massive convenience, and alcohol is a food stuff like any other.
2. More opportunities for micro-breweries. At present micro-breweries are legally limited to selling their beer at their brewery stores only. Anything else has to go through the LCBO or the Beer Store - and the latter is controlled by large labels and has been strangling the micro-brew industry for years by limiting the selection they can sell or outright refusing to sell their products. Allowing beer producers to bypass them and distribute directly through grocery stores will be a huge boom to the Ontario beer industry.
3. More money in the Ontario economy. The Beer Store, that private company that holds a monopoly on beer sales in Ontario outside of the LCBO? It's owned by foreign large labels. Which means all the profits from Ontario beer sales are moved to other countries, and we're left with the tab (in the form of the social ills of alcohol abuse, which shockingly those international companies are refusing to help us pay for with the profits they made from our alcohol sales). Again, local grocery stores and (someday) convenience stores breaking the Beer Store monopoly and keeping these profits in Ontario can only have positive outcomes.
I have said this in this very thread before, but there is a massive base of medical evidence that making alcohol more available (i.e. increasing hours of sale, number of stores, or in this case selling it in grocery stores) WILL increase alcoholism rates noticeably. This is a well-known and irrefutable fact of public health. You can talk about Europe's alcoholism rates being lower, and they are, but that is due to extrinsic cultural factors. It has been proven that in North America, if you widen liquor distribution, alcoholism rates will go up. I don't think that a teeny bit more convenience for me (yes, I can finally impulse-by that 24 pack of beer rather than having to drive 2 blocks to the liquor store) is worth that cost.
Ontario has a heavy drinking rate of 12.8%. Québec, where the drinking age is one year lower and enforced really weakly and where alcohol is sold much more widely and social attitudes towards alcohol consumption are much more liberal, has a heavy drinking rate of 15.6%. This 2.8% increase is the "noticeable" difference you're using to justify Ontario's draconian alcohol sale policies. I'm not even sure it's out of the error range for the survey (I can't find it on the page, if anyone can that'd be great).
I'll take convenience and the economic boost to the province over a 2.8% decrease in heavy drinking.
No, actually, that is NOT the difference I am using at all, which is why I didn't mention it. I am using the body of public health science research, which I have been taught. I don't remember the specific papers, because the point was not to learn author names but to learn the conclusions, but as a doctor and recent graduate they had good reason to teach us the stuff and the research was current.
Cultural factors play an important role in drinking habits though. Comparing a province with a predominantly French cultural background versus a province with a predominantly English one is not the best basis for comparison.
I personally believe that having liquor stores open to 2 a.m. is a contributing factor. I can't go to a liquor store past 8p.m. without having to deal with intoxicated patrons. Not a problem i remember having at the SAQ.
Actually, all alcohol sale in stores is forbidden after 11pm in Québec, I believe precisely for that reason. Very few people go to a store to buy alcohol after 11pm unless they're already drunk and ran out of booze and need to get more to get even more wasted.
I personally like that alcohol isn't sold in just any store (I don't like dealing with alcohol drinkers in my retail jobs) and I find the selection and staff expertise at the BC Liquor stores to be far more helpful than the Beer & Wine stores who often seem to have far more turn over in their staff, even if they are open later.
So please explain why this is a step in the right direction for Ontario, my perspective over here in BC makes it seem like a step in the wrong direction, so I would appreciate an argument that enlightens me on the subject.
1. Convenience for customers. Alcohol isn't this magical thing that should be sheltered from regular foods and isolated in its own special stores. It's groceries. It should be sold wherever groceries are sold. Grocery stores, convenience stores, you name it. This isn't to say that liquor stores should be banned (they shouldn't, they serve a useful function to sell more specialized products just like any specialty grocery store) but alcohol sale should not be confined to those stores alone. How annoying would it be if all groceries were sold like this? Go to one store to buy your bread, then drive to another store two streets down for your milk, then drive to another store for cheese, then halfway across town to the butcher store... we'd spend two days driving around doing grocery shopping! All basic food stuff in one store is a massive convenience, and alcohol is a food stuff like any other.
2. More opportunities for micro-breweries. At present micro-breweries are legally limited to selling their beer at their brewery stores only. Anything else has to go through the LCBO or the Beer Store - and the latter is controlled by large labels and has been strangling the micro-brew industry for years by limiting the selection they can sell or outright refusing to sell their products. Allowing beer producers to bypass them and distribute directly through grocery stores will be a huge boom to the Ontario beer industry.
3. More money in the Ontario economy. The Beer Store, that private company that holds a monopoly on beer sales in Ontario outside of the LCBO? It's owned by foreign large labels. Which means all the profits from Ontario beer sales are moved to other countries, and we're left with the tab (in the form of the social ills of alcohol abuse, which shockingly those international companies are refusing to help us pay for with the profits they made from our alcohol sales). Again, local grocery stores and (someday) convenience stores breaking the Beer Store monopoly and keeping these profits in Ontario can only have positive outcomes.
I have said this in this very thread before, but there is a massive base of medical evidence that making alcohol more available (i.e. increasing hours of sale, number of stores, or in this case selling it in grocery stores) WILL increase alcoholism rates noticeably. This is a well-known and irrefutable fact of public health. You can talk about Europe's alcoholism rates being lower, and they are, but that is due to extrinsic cultural factors. It has been proven that in North America, if you widen liquor distribution, alcoholism rates will go up. I don't think that a teeny bit more convenience for me (yes, I can finally impulse-by that 24 pack of beer rather than having to drive 2 blocks to the liquor store) is worth that cost.
Ontario has a heavy drinking rate of 12.8%. Québec, where the drinking age is one year lower and enforced really weakly and where alcohol is sold much more widely and social attitudes towards alcohol consumption are much more liberal, has a heavy drinking rate of 15.6%. This 2.8% increase is the "noticeable" difference you're using to justify Ontario's draconian alcohol sale policies. I'm not even sure it's out of the error range for the survey (I can't find it on the page, if anyone can that'd be great).
I'll take convenience and the economic boost to the province over a 2.8% decrease in heavy drinking.
No, actually, that is NOT the difference I am using at all, which is why I didn't mention it. I am using the body of public health science research, which I have been taught. I don't remember the specific papers, because the point was not to learn author names but to learn the conclusions, but as a doctor and recent graduate they had good reason to teach us the stuff and the research was current.
Here's Stats Canada 2011 numbers for alcohol consumption above low-risk drinking guidelines per province.
Chronically above LRDG: Québec = 21.4%, Ontario = 17.1%. You guys win by 4.3%. New high score for Ontario!
Acutely above LRDG: Québec = 13.7%, Ontario = 12.8%. You guys can't even get a full percentage point above us for acute dangerous drinking.
And just for the heck of it, why not look at other drugs?
Rate of cannabis use over a person's life: Québec = 39.7%, Ontario = 37.0%, difference is 2.7%
Rate of use of other illegal drugs over a person's life: Québec = 41.6%, Ontario = 37.6%, difference is 4%
Now that's interesting because those are Federally-regulated substances, meaning that there is no legal difference between Québec and Ontario. These substances are equally banned in Ontario and Québec. And what do we find in the usage statistics? That the difference between Québec and Ontario is about the same as for alcohol, the substance for which the laws are substantially different between Ontario and Québec. That means that Ontario's draconian alcohol control has actually had no measurable impact to reduce alcohol consumption compared to Québec's liberal laws, when cast in the context of general substance use. Or conversely, that Québec's liberal laws have not measurably increased alcohol consumption in that province compared to what they should be relative to Ontario's.
Or, you know, we can just ignore actual numbers from Statistics Canada in favour of your word about your vague recollection of numbers you tell us you read in a paper back in med school but can't back up in any way.
Cultural factors play an important role in drinking habits though. Comparing a province with a predominantly French cultural background versus a province with a predominantly English one is not the best basis for comparison.
Cultural factors play an important role in drinking habits though. Comparing a province with a predominantly French cultural background versus a province with a predominantly English one is not the best basis for comparison.
Math is transcendental.
As cute as your statement is, he has a point, to an extent. There are likely to be other influences in alcohol consumption rates, which are possibly not held constant between provinces. It'd be more useful to look at rates in somewhere like Alberta, before and after deregulation of the liquor board.
Posts
Baby step in the right direction is still a step in the right direction.
Ontario and Nova Scotia are two very different provinces with two very different sets of circumstances.
It also sounds like our tax credit and Ontario's system went about things in very different ways.
In Nova Scotia, the return on investment for the government with this credit is about $4-5 gained for every $1 spent. In 2013, the credit amounted to about $24 million spent, and brought in about $133 million.
The credit is certainly open to reevaluation, but excuse me if I'm not open to the idea of scrapping it and using Nova Scotia as a test case just because some dude I've never heard of in Ontario has a theory.
I just feel bad for the convenience stores. They really want to sell alcohol, and they were shut out of this one.
I'm also curious how supermarkets carrying booze will affect the fact that a lot of supermarket checkers are under 19.
So please explain why this is a step in the right direction for Ontario, my perspective over here in BC makes it seem like a step in the wrong direction, so I would appreciate an argument that enlightens me on the subject.
1. Convenience for customers. Alcohol isn't this magical thing that should be sheltered from regular foods and isolated in its own special stores. It's groceries. It should be sold wherever groceries are sold. Grocery stores, convenience stores, you name it. This isn't to say that liquor stores should be banned (they shouldn't, they serve a useful function to sell more specialized products just like any specialty grocery store) but alcohol sale should not be confined to those stores alone. How annoying would it be if all groceries were sold like this? Go to one store to buy your bread, then drive to another store two streets down for your milk, then drive to another store for cheese, then halfway across town to the butcher store... we'd spend two days driving around doing grocery shopping! All basic food stuff in one store is a massive convenience, and alcohol is a food stuff like any other.
2. More opportunities for micro-breweries. At present micro-breweries are legally limited to selling their beer at their brewery stores only. Anything else has to go through the LCBO or the Beer Store - and the latter is controlled by large labels and has been strangling the micro-brew industry for years by limiting the selection they can sell or outright refusing to sell their products. Allowing beer producers to bypass them and distribute directly through grocery stores will be a huge boom to the Ontario beer industry.
3. More money in the Ontario economy. The Beer Store, that private company that holds a monopoly on beer sales in Ontario outside of the LCBO? It's owned by foreign large labels. Which means all the profits from Ontario beer sales are moved to other countries, and we're left with the tab (in the form of the social ills of alcohol abuse, which shockingly those international companies are refusing to help us pay for with the profits they made from our alcohol sales). Again, local grocery stores and (someday) convenience stores breaking the Beer Store monopoly and keeping these profits in Ontario can only have positive outcomes.
Personally, I quite like the LCBO. Booze in Ontario is pricey, but the LCBO has good selection, knowledgeable staff and a nice/clean/pleasant retail space to shop in. Also, since they're the only game in town for booze and wine...they will get you ANYTHING you request as long as its a shippable quantity. (ie: that fancy wine you had in Australia on vacation two years ago? As long as you are willing to take a whole case of it....they'll bring it in for you, no problem.)
Its Beer...and I think larger quantities of Beer...that really get people riled up. Joe McLikesabeer who buys a 2-4 of Molson on the weekends really would rather do it at the same place he buys all his other stuff for the weekend. The Beer Store has had a sweet deal for a very long time, and until the past few years very few people knew that it was a foreign owned private company. They also have a habit of putting up barriers to the local craft/micro brewers out there who want their product on store shelves.
The hours of the LCBOs near me were pretty good when I lived in Toronto.
Oh it's not bad, I was just used to growing up in NF, where all the liquor stores in St. John's are 10-10 every day, but the closest one to me now is only open after 6 on thursday/friday
Ones near me were all open till 9pm except on Sundays.
JMFC.
Concealed carry anyone?
I never finish anyth
Nope. What's going on?
Yeah, I am super not okay with this. Having armed personnel from another country stationed within our borders sounds terrible, and the lack of accountability in this jurisdiction sounds downright horrifying.
This just sounds like a horrible incident waiting to happen. How the hell does something like this get the green light?
Brian Jean is a tax robot, who literally cannot say anything but that taxes need to be lowered
Jim Prentice cannot pronounce Rachel Notley's name, but is also essentially ignoring everyone but her. He also looks very defensive. He said to Notely at one point "look, I know math is hard" which is going to bite him in the ass all campaign long.
Notley overall looks pretty good.
Because we have a Prime Minister who literally hates Canada and who pledged "you won't recognize it by the time I'm done with it".
Yeah, I guess the sentiment of 'how could this happen' was a bit rhetorical. It's downright depressing how obvious the actual answer is.
Finance minister says issues with future deficits due to his shortsighted budget are a problem for Stephen Harper's Granddaughter to solve
"Fuck you, we got ours"
Lois Lilienstein, of Sharon, Lois, and Bram fame, has passed away.
I remember watching that show, and still have some tapes of their performances. Told my boyfriend, and despite having not seen the TV show in at least 20 years, we both automatically began 'signing' Skinnermerinkydinkydink
WoW
Dear Satan.....
Saw them when I was a kid at a boys and girls club event. I got to go onstage and dance with the elephant!
All three of them have such a love of children. She will be missed...
You gotta admit, it's at least refreshingly honest for his generation to straight up admit their whole plan is to do whatever they want and fuck the next generation.
I have said this in this very thread before, but there is a massive base of medical evidence that making alcohol more available (i.e. increasing hours of sale, number of stores, or in this case selling it in grocery stores) WILL increase alcoholism rates noticeably. This is a well-known and irrefutable fact of public health. You can talk about Europe's alcoholism rates being lower, and they are, but that is due to extrinsic cultural factors. It has been proven that in North America, if you widen liquor distribution, alcoholism rates will go up. I don't think that a teeny bit more convenience for me (yes, I can finally impulse-by that 24 pack of beer rather than having to drive 2 blocks to the liquor store) is worth that cost.
Noticeably?
According to Stats Canada:
Heavy drinking per province, 2012
Total population per province, 2012
Ontario has a heavy drinking rate of 12.8%. Québec, where the drinking age is one year lower and enforced really weakly and where alcohol is sold much more widely and social attitudes towards alcohol consumption are much more liberal, has a heavy drinking rate of 15.6%. This 2.8% increase is the "noticeable" difference you're using to justify Ontario's draconian alcohol sale policies. I'm not even sure it's out of the error range for the survey (I can't find it on the page, if anyone can that'd be great).
I'll take convenience and the economic boost to the province over a 2.8% decrease in heavy drinking.
Just anecdotal but it's one of the most striking difference to me culturally between Quebec where I grew up to Alberta. Quebec drinks to drink . Alberta drinks to get shit-faced drunk.
I personally believe that having liquor stores open to 2 a.m. is a contributing factor. I can't go to a liquor store past 8p.m. without having to deal with intoxicated patrons. Not a problem i remember having at the SAQ.
No, actually, that is NOT the difference I am using at all, which is why I didn't mention it. I am using the body of public health science research, which I have been taught. I don't remember the specific papers, because the point was not to learn author names but to learn the conclusions, but as a doctor and recent graduate they had good reason to teach us the stuff and the research was current.
Cultural factors play an important role in drinking habits though. Comparing a province with a predominantly French cultural background versus a province with a predominantly English one is not the best basis for comparison.
Here's Stats Canada 2011 numbers for alcohol consumption above low-risk drinking guidelines per province.
Chronically above LRDG: Québec = 21.4%, Ontario = 17.1%. You guys win by 4.3%. New high score for Ontario!
Acutely above LRDG: Québec = 13.7%, Ontario = 12.8%. You guys can't even get a full percentage point above us for acute dangerous drinking.
And just for the heck of it, why not look at other drugs?
Rate of cannabis use over a person's life: Québec = 39.7%, Ontario = 37.0%, difference is 2.7%
Rate of use of other illegal drugs over a person's life: Québec = 41.6%, Ontario = 37.6%, difference is 4%
Now that's interesting because those are Federally-regulated substances, meaning that there is no legal difference between Québec and Ontario. These substances are equally banned in Ontario and Québec. And what do we find in the usage statistics? That the difference between Québec and Ontario is about the same as for alcohol, the substance for which the laws are substantially different between Ontario and Québec. That means that Ontario's draconian alcohol control has actually had no measurable impact to reduce alcohol consumption compared to Québec's liberal laws, when cast in the context of general substance use. Or conversely, that Québec's liberal laws have not measurably increased alcohol consumption in that province compared to what they should be relative to Ontario's.
Or, you know, we can just ignore actual numbers from Statistics Canada in favour of your word about your vague recollection of numbers you tell us you read in a paper back in med school but can't back up in any way.
Math is transcendental.
As cute as your statement is, he has a point, to an extent. There are likely to be other influences in alcohol consumption rates, which are possibly not held constant between provinces. It'd be more useful to look at rates in somewhere like Alberta, before and after deregulation of the liquor board.