Ontario gov't allows mixed drinks' sale in groceries

The Ontario government is fast-tracking its plan to allow grocery stores to sell premixed alcoholic drinks, after government workers opposed to the plan shut down provincial liquor stores by walking out on strike.  

Ontario further speeds up alcohol expansion amid LCBO strike | Windsor Star | Allison Jones, Canadian Press:

July 16, 2024 - ""Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s government is rushing to get ready-to-drink cocktails on grocery store shelves amid a strike at the province’s main liquor retailer.... Finance Minister Peter Bethlenfalvy announced Monday that grocery stores that are already licensed to sell beer and wine can start ordering the pre-mixed cocktails, as well as large packs of beer, to sell starting on Thursday [July 18] — sooner than the planned Aug. 1 launch.... 

"The sped-up move is part of an already fast-tracked plan to expand alcohol sales in the province. Ford’s previous plan was to get beer, wine and ready-to-drink cocktails in convenience stores and all grocery stores by 2026 [see video], but in May he announced that would instead happen this year.

"Leadership at the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, whose approximately 10,000 workers at the Liquor Control Board of Ontario [LCBO] walked off the job July 5, has said ... the main issue in the labour dispute ... is the expanded sale of ready-to-drink cocktails. Previous rounds of alcohol market expansion in Ontario have kept spirits sales in the hands of the LCBO, and OPSEU worries undoing that will threaten the LCBO and union jobs. Getting ready-to-drink beverages in grocery stores even sooner is an attempt to undercut the LCBO and amounts to interfering in bargaining, said OPSEU president JP Hornick....

"Ford has denied he is trying to dismantle or privatize the LCBO, and government officials have noted that LCBO revenues have increased through previous rounds of alcohol sales expansions. Bethlenfalvy has directed the Crown corporation to showcase and promote Ontario beer, wine, spirits and ciders as part of the expansion, and he has said it will still have an important role as a wholesaler.

"Ford last week firmly ruled out a reversal on the ready-to-drink expansion, saying the ship had sailed 'halfway across Lake Ontario.' The 450 grocery stores across the province that are already licensed to sell beer, wine and ciders can begin placing orders for the coolers and seltzers on Thursday and can sell the beverages as soon as they receive them. 

"They will also be able to sell larger packages of beer, such as cases of 24. An agreement the former Liberal government signed with The Beer Store in 2015 ... [which] gave the company exclusive rights to sell 12- and 24-packs of beer .... had been set to expire at the end of 2025, but Ford’s sped-up plan involves an 'early implementation agreement' with The Beer Store that involves the province paying the company up to $225 million to help it keep stores open and workers employed. The province is also giving brewers a rebate on an LCBO fee that normally brings in $45 million a year, and it is giving retailers a 10-per-cent wholesale discount."

Read more: https://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/ontario-further-speeds-up-alcohol-expansion-amid-lcbo-strike

Premier Ford announces plans to allow beer and wine sales in Ontario convenience stores by 2026 | cpac | December 12, 2023:

Ont. liquor store workers strike to stop privatization

Ontario liquor store workers have gone on strike to convince Ontarians to oppose the Ford government's limited privatization of alcohol sales. But shutting down their monopoly and threatening us with a "dry summer" may have the opposite effect.  

LCBO Workers Strike Against Privatization | X:

July 6, 2024 - "In Ontario, LCBO {Liquor Control Board of Ontario] workers are on strike for the first time in the corporation's 97-year history, protesting against the government's plan to open up the alcohol market to private interests. The strike is seen as a fight to protect public services and jobs, with the LCBO generating $2.5 billion in profits annually, which are used to fund healthcare, education, and public services. Critics argue that the government's plan to privatize alcohol sales will lead to a loss of revenue for the province and negatively impact public services."

Read more: https://x.com/i/trending/1809465789466001415

LCBO strike closes Ontario liquor stores across province | CBC News: The National | July 5, 2024:

LCBO strike puts privatization on agenda | Toronto Sun | Brian Lilley:

July 5, 2024 - “'Tonight, Ford’s dry summer begins,' Colleen MacLeod, chair of the union’s bargaining team, said on Thursday ahead of the strike. MacLeod said that if Ontario residents can’t get the alcohol they want this summer, it will be because of Premier Doug Ford. Actually, because of several moves Ford made over the last several years, residents of the province will still mostly be able to get the drinks they want despite the strike.

"Since the depths of the pandemic, any restaurant or bar that sells alcohol has been able to sell alcohol to go. That means every restaurant or bar in the province can act as a de facto liquor store. While in most instances these outlets charge more, there will likely be some enterprising operators who take advantage of the strike to sell booze at a reasonable price.... There are also craft distillers, craft brewers and wineries across the province that can sell their products from their own production facilities. The province will even be promoting locations where residents will be able to find alcohol to purchase from The Beer Store to local Wine Rack locations, local producers to pop-up bottle shops.... Oh, and starting in less than a month, the expansion of sales in grocery and convenience stores will begin.

"Does the union realize that they aren’t fighting a losing battle but a battle the province has already won? Do they not realize that their actions are proving why having a unionized government monopoly of alcohol sales is a bad idea?

"The union relied heavily on the idea that alcohol sales at the LCBO fund health care and education and without the sales coming through LCBO stores, the funding for those services would be lost.... LCBO turns over $2.5 billion to the province each year and that money does help fund services. Yet, if we look at other provinces, we can see that the government can still earn money from alcohol sales without controlling all aspects of the sale, warehousing and wholesaling of the product. 

"Quebec has a hybrid model of alcohol sales with beer and wine widely available in private stores while also operating the SAQ, the government-run liquor store chain. Alberta has a fully private model for retail and has for more than 30 years. Both Quebec and Alberta earn significantly more per capita from alcohol via taxes and fees than Ontario does via the LCBO. And often, the prices in those provinces are lower than they are in Ontario.

"If having a government monopoly on booze doesn’t bring consumers lower prices and it doesn’t bring the government more revenue, then what is the point of having one?"

Read more: https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lcbo-strike-puts-privatization-on-the-agenda

Toronto council votes to ban gas lawnmowers, etc.

Toronto Ontario city council voted this week to ban gas-powered lawnmowers, leaf blowers, and week whackers from the city. 

Cheers to beer in parks, but gas weed-whacker ban needs to be cut | Toronto Sun | Brian Lilley:

July 19, 2021 - "City council passed two different motions on Wednesday: One looking to allow an activity that is already happening, the other to ban something the city has no ability to enforce.

"Council gave the go-ahead to allow a pilot project to allow consumption of alcohol in 22 of the city’s roughly 1,500 parks between Aug. 2 and Oct. 9. The motion requires city staff to prepare a report on the pilot project and report back in early 2024. The province gave municipalities the ability to allow alcohol consumption in city parks years ago. Many municipalities did so simply by removing their existing bylaws, but not Toronto....

"My first time in High Park after moving here in my 20s was to watch a play in the park, which I did while drinking a bottle of wine like most of those around me. That was in the 1990s and it’s still happening in parks, at the beach and elsewhere without much in the way of an issue, but we had to debate it still and demand a report.... 

Photo courtesy Wikimedia Commons.

"Moments later, council went from being permissive to restrictive, deciding that even if two-stroke engines powering weed whackers, leaf blowers, lawn mowers and other small engine equipment are legal, they shouldn’t be used in Toronto. The motion called for city staff to 'identify the resources required to develop and implement a ban on two-stroke equipment.'

"The ban would cover city workers using the equipment and residents. For residents struggling to transition, the motion called for staff to look into the ability to set up a lending library for electric versions of lawn equipment that residents could borrow...

"What’s fascinating about this proposed ban is that the city has little ability to enforce such a ban. Buying the equipment would still be legal unless and until the federal government passes legislation to ban it. Even if local stores stopped carrying the equipment, there would be nothing to stop residents from driving outside of city limits to buy their lawnmower or weed whacker or ordering them online.

"It’s certain that some residents would rat out neighbours using gas-powered lawn gear, but what could the city do? The city can’t enforce existing bylaws and has allowed encampments to take over parks across the city, but some councillors want to make stopping you from using a weed whacker a priority."

Read more: https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/toronto-council-says-yes-to-beer-in-parks-no-to-weed-whackers

Health Canada report calls for zero alcohol consumption

A Health Canada-funded report recommends zero alcohol consumption, and calls for mandatory warning labels on all alcoholic beverages as a first step to that goal.

What's behind Canada's drastic new alcohol guidance | BBC News - Holly Honderich:

Warning labels on liquor bottles in Yukon, Canada, 2020. Canadian Centre for Substance Abuse / CBC.

January 17, 2023 - "In Canada, it should be Dry January all year round, according to new national recommendations that say zero alcohol is the only risk-free approach. If you must drink at all, two drinks maximum each week is deemed low-risk by the government-backed guidance.

"The advice is a steep drop from the previous recommendation, published in 2011. Those guidelines allowed a maximum of 10 drinks a week for women and 15 drinks for men.

"The new report, funded by Health Canada, also suggested mandatory warning labels for all alcoholic beverages....

"The nearly 90-page report, from the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction (CCSA), details a variety of health risks associated with what was previously considered low alcohol consumption. According to the CCSA, any more than two standard drinks - each the equivalent of a 12-ounce (341ml; 0.6 pints) serving of 5% alcohol beer or a five-ounce (142ml; 0.26 pints) glass of 12% alcohol wine - brings an increase in negative outcomes, including breast and colon cancer. 

"It may be a rude awakening for the roughly 80% of Canadian adults who drink. Canadian experts say the drastic change in guidance - from nearly two drinks per day to two per week - is the result of better research over time....

"The new recommendations put the country out of step with several other Western nations. Australia's national guidance, published in 2020, recommends a maximum of 10 standard drinks a week. France suggests the same. The US recommends no more than two drinks a day for men and one for women, while the UK suggests no more than 14 "units" of alcohol - around six glasses of wine, or pints of beer - per week. But Canada is not a total outlier. As of 2015, the Netherlands' health council recommended that people abstained from alcohol altogether, or drink no more than one standard drink each day.

"It's still an open question whether Canadians - who love their beer almost as much as they love hockey - will be convinced to drink less because of this guidance. According to the Global Drug Survey, in drinking frequency, Canada does not rank in the top 10 countries globally, falling below the global average. But on the measure of 'feeling drunk', Canada jumped to the sixth spot, just behind the US and the UK....

"CCSA scientists and other experts say that mandatory labelling of all alcoholic beverages with health warnings, now common practice for cigarettes, is a necessary first step.... Still, mandating nationwide labelling would require sign-off from Health Canada. In a statement to the BBC, the agency thanked the CCSA for its work, saying alcohol use presents 'serious and complex public health and safety issues'. But it would not comment on adding health warnings to Canadians' drinks."

Read more: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64311705

Sweden shows futility of lockdown experiment

How Sweden swerved Covid disaster | Unherd - Johan Anderberg:

November 8, 2021 - "Until recently, prohibition remained the largest experiment in social engineering a democracy had ever undertaken. And then, in early 2020, a new virus began to spread from China. Faced with this threat, the world’s governments responded by closing schools, banning people from meeting, forcing entrepreneurs to shut their businesses and making ordinary people wear face masks. Like prohibition, this experiment provoked a debate. In all the democracies of the world, freedom was weighed against what was perceived as security; individual rights versus what was considered best for public health.

"Few now remember that for most of 2020, the word 'experiment' had negative connotations. That was what Swedes were accused of conducting when we — unlike the rest of the world — maintained some semblance of normality. The citizens of this country generally didn’t have to wear face masks; young children continued going to school; leisure activities were largely allowed to continue unhindered. This experiment was judged early on as 'a disaster' (Time magazine), 'the world’s cautionary tale' (New York Times), 'deadly folly' (the Guardian).... The hypothesis of the outside world was that ... absence of restrictions, open schools, reliance on recommendations instead of mandates and police enforcement would result in higher deaths than other countries. Meanwhile, the lack of freedom endured by the citizens of other countries would 'save lives'. At this stage, it was not unreasonable to conclude that Sweden would pay a high price for its freedom. Throughout the spring of 2020, Sweden’s death toll per capita was higher than most other countries.

"But the experiment didn’t end there. During the year that followed, the virus continued to ravage the world and, one by one, the death tolls in countries that had locked down began to surpass Sweden’s. Britain, the US, France, Poland, Portugal, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Spain, Argentina, Belgium — countries that had variously shut down playgrounds, forced their children to wear facemasks, closed schools, fined citizens for hanging out on the beach and guarded parks with drones — have all been hit worse than Sweden. At the time of writing, more than 50 countries have a higher death rate.... If Sweden was a part of the US, its death rate would rank number 43 of the 50 states. 

Graph courtesy CTV News

"This fact is shockingly underreported. Consider the sheer number of articles and TV segments devoted to Sweden’s foolishly liberal attitude to the pandemic last year.... Suddenly, it is as if Sweden doesn’t exist.... 

"From a human perspective, it is easy to understand the reluctance to face these numbers. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that millions of people have been deprived of their freedom, and millions of children have had their education gravely damaged, for little demonstrable gain. Who wants to admit that they were complicit in this? But what one American judge called the 'laboratories of democracy' have conducted their experiment — and the result is increasingly clear.

"Exactly why it turned out this way is harder to explain, but perhaps the 'noble experiment' of the 1920s in the US can offer some clues. Prohibition didn’t win because the freedom argument prevailed. Nor was it because the substance itself had become any less harmful.... The reason for the eventual demise of the alcohol ban was that it simply didn’t work. No matter what the law said, Americans didn’t stop drinking alcohol.... The mistake the American authorities made was to underestimate the complexity of society. Just because they banned alcohol did not mean that alcohol disappeared. People’s drives, desires and behaviours were impossible to predict or fit into a plan. 

"A hundred years later, a new set of authorities made the same mistake. Closing schools didn’t stop children meeting in other settings; when life was extinguished in cities, many fled them, spreading the infection to new places; the authorities urged their citizens to buy food online, without thinking about who would transport the goods from home to home.

"If the politicians had been honest with themselves, they might have foreseen what would happen. For just as American politicians were constantly caught drinking alcohol during the prohibition, their successors were caught 100 years later breaking precisely the restrictions they had imposed on everyone else. The mayors of New York and Chicago, the British government’s top advisor, the Dutch Minister of Justice, the EU Trade Commissioner, the Governor of California all broke their own rules.

"It isn’t easy to control other people’s lives. It isn’t easy to dictate desirable behaviours in a population via centralised command. These are lessons that many dictators have learned. During the Covid pandemic, many democracies have learned it too. The lesson has perhaps not yet sunk in, but hopefully it will eventually. Then perhaps it will be another 100 years before we make the same mistake again."

Read more: https://unherd.com/2021/11/how-sweden-swerved-covid-disaster/

Economic shutdown can kill, too

Drugs, Suicide, and Crime: Empirical Estimates of the Human Toll of the Shutdown | American Institute of Economic Research - Audrey Redford & Thomas K. Duncan:

March 28, 2020 - "As the coronavirus pandemic continues across the world, leaders and policymakers have scrambled to respond to the growing health crisis. In the United States, multiple state governors have issued statements urging their citizens to follow social distancing guidelines. Other governors have taken more extreme measures, issuing orders to effectively lock down the entire state economy....

"There have been forecasted estimates of virus-related death totals for the US from as high as 10 million, to 2.2 million, to more conservative estimates.... The models used to estimate the potential death rates are not without criticism and repeated adjustment.... However, as important as it is to get the cost of not shutting down right, it is also important that policymakers properly weigh the cost of the economic shutdowns themselves....

"[T]he ability to operate in a functioning economy is important for the people within it. The economy is the people, and the people are the economy. The ability to continue to function in a market system does matter to individuals within the system, particularly when the inability of business to remain open and continue to employ them is in question.

"We have already started to see some of these human effects as the unemployment has quickly rocketed beyond even the early initial projections. A rise in unemployment is correlated with a number of negative socio-economic effects. For some, these effects can be quite deadly....

"A 2017 NBER paper finds a 3.6% increase in the opioid death rate per 100,000 people for a 1% rise in unemployment. There were 14.6 opioid deaths per 100,000 in the US in 2018. If we use the more conservative estimate of a 20% unemployment rate without a quick return to lower levels, ... there is potential for an additional 28,797 deaths from opioids annually.... Consider that [in] 2018 ... 46,802 deaths were considered an opioid crisis....

"Similarly, Mulia, et al, (2014) connects a rise in alcoholism to economic loss during the Great Recession. The CDC estimates that 2,200 people die in the US just from alcohol poisoning annually.... In 2017 alone, there were also 22,246 deaths resulting from alcoholic liver disease.  As the jobless rate increases and the economic losses continue to mount, these numbers are likely to rise.

"Blakely, et al, (2003) find that being unemployed may also increase the risk of suicide two to threefold. Milner, et al. (2014) similarly finds that unemployment is associated with a higher relative risk of suicide, with prior mental health issues being a key factor in that association. While a study by Kerr, et al, (2018) did not find that unemployment is directly linked to suicides, it did find a significant link between poverty, suicide, and alcoholism.

"Lin and Chen (2018) ... find that unemployment does have a direct impact on older portions of the population, the portion of the population many of the current shutdowns are most meant to protect. Whether it is the direct unemployment effect or the potential poverty produced from the economic shutdown that leads to greater suicides, an increase from the 48,344 suicides and 1,400,000 suicide attempts in the US in 2018 should give decision-makers pause....

"Ajimotokin, et al, (2015) estimate that a one percent change in unemployment will increase the property crime rate by 71.1 per 100,000 people and the violent crime rate by 31.9 per 100,000 people.... Kposowa and Johnson (2016) find that unemployed workers are over 50% more likely to become homicide victims than those who are employed. They also find people not in the labor force to be 1.3 times more likely to be victims than those who are employed....

"The future during such a pandemic is largely uncertain, and misinformation is rampant in the current panic. Policymakers face tough decisions as they navigate the issues of data collection, virus transmission, and economic ramifications of doing too little or too much. It is vitally important, literally life and death, that the proper costs and benefits are weighed with the decision on how much and how long to shut down economic activity through the pandemic."

Read more: https://www.aier.org/article/drugs-suicide-and-crime-empirical-estimates-of-the-human-toll-of-the-shut-down/

SCOTUS limits states' alcohol licensing powers

US Supreme Court rules state liquor laws are unconstitutional - Sam Bloch, The New Food Economy:

June 27, 2019 - "Generally speaking, the Commerce Clause of the Constitution allows for most foods to cross state lines. That’s not the case with liquor, though. Most states require salesmen to ... hav[e] lived within their boundaries for a given number of years. But ... [y]esterday, the Supreme Court decided that those residency provisions are unconstitutional, ruling against a Tennessee trade association by a 7-2 vote....

"The case began in 2016, when Total Wine, a Maryland-based liquor giant, and Affluere Investments, a small business owned by Doug and Mary Ketchum, each applied for licenses to sell liquor in Tennessee.... After the Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) approved their petitions, the Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association (TWSRA) appealed, saying that neither applicant was legally allowed to have a license. Tennessee is one of 35 states with a residency requirement for selling liquor. In this case, the trade association pointed out, neither applicant had been living in the state for two years. Additionally, the law requires 10 years of residency to renew the license, and for all company stakeholders to be residents, too.

"Lower courts found that Tennessee’s law was unconstitutional, but TWSRA took their suit against Russell F. Thomas, the commission’s executive director, all the way to the Supreme Court. The association said their law is protected by the second section of the 21st Amendment, which overturned prohibition. That particular section gives states the options to stop the import of liquor across their borders.

"And again, it’s failed to persuade the court. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority of the court, said the state’s two-year residency requirement, which doesn’t have an effect on public health or safety, is unconstitutional, and a violation of interstate commerce laws.... The [21st Amendment] clause 'is not a license to impose all manner of protectionist restrictions on commerce in alcoholic beverages'....

"Tom Wark, executive director of the National Association of Wine Retailers, a trade association that had submitted an amicus brief, cheered the decision. 'State alcohol laws that discriminate against out-of-state retailers for the purposes of protecting in-state interests are unconstitutional and not protected by the Twenty-First Amendment. The decision is a historic win for both free trade and wine consumers across the country,' he said in a press statement."

Read more: https://newfoodeconomy.org/supreme-court-tennessee-liquor-laws-unconstitutional/
'via Blog this'

How Canada fumbled the cannabis file

Opinion: These are the 5 biggest mistakes of cannabis legalization in Canada | Grow by Daily Hive - Sarah Leaman:

June 24, 2019 - "It’s been nearly nine months since the legalization of cannabis, but things are far from perfect in the great green north. Here are the five biggest fails of Canadian cannabis legalization so far:

Packaging
"Cannabis packaging requirements shocked the public when they were unveiled back in October and it quickly became apparent that way too much plastic was involved. Following legalization, a single gram of cannabis comes with approximately 70 grams of plastic, foil, and packaging. The amount of packaging goes up if cannabis is sent through the mail. And to add insult to irony, just a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister announced a comprehensive, intended ban on single-use plastics in an effort to help combat climate change, leaving the government’s approach to cannabis completely disconnected from reality....

Impaired driving laws
"When cannabis was legalized, several new impaired driving laws were also introduced. The first of these laws involved the launch of roadside oral fluid screening devices..... We presently have two federally approved devices for police use on our roadways: the Draeger DrugTest 5000 and the Abbott SoToxa. The problem? Neither of these devices are able to detect driver impairment. And, on top of that major malfunction, both devices are prone to failure, meaning that they can generate both false positive and false negative readings....

"And to make a bad situation worse, the Criminal Code has been amended to include per se limits for THC in a driver’s bloodstream.  This mirrors provisions in relation to alcohol. But ... THC is fat-soluble; not water-soluble like alcohol..... This means that THC can remain in a persons’ body for an extended period of time and long after the effects of impairment have worn off, which will inevitably lead to sober people being charged with serious offences.

"While these changes were done in the interests of public safety, there has been absolutely no indication that they were necessary. Rates of impaired driving have not increased ... since October 17, 2018.

Continued criminalization
"While cannabis is technically legal in Canada, the flower is still far from being free.... [T]he Cannabis Act concurrently created over forty new cannabis-related offences in this country.... Many offences could land a person with a criminal record, or even behind bars.... And ... the government has been dragging its heels on the issue of cannabis amnesty. Failure to include amnesty provisions from the very outset of cannabis legalization was a critical misstep, which opened the door to criticism about the governments’ commitment to true cannabis decriminalization.....

Stigmatizing employment policies
"When cannabis was legalized on October 17, 2018, many employers acted as though it had just been invented that very day.... The kneejerk reaction to legal cannabis caused employers to create strict new policies around cannabis [as] in the airline industry, which has effectively banned cannabis use for all employees, no matter if they are on duty or not. The 28-day pre-flight cannabis ban sits in stark contrast to Transport Canada policies around alcohol, which simply prohibit consumption 12-hours prior to reporting for duty.

Distribution and shortages
"Last but certainly not least, are issues around effective cannabis distribution and shortages that have plagued our country since legalization.... Canadians wishing to access a legal supply were forced to wait in long lines and subject themselves to unreasonable wait times. With few brick and mortar stores up and running, many Canadians were left to rely on the internet to order online....  This dissatisfaction only worsened when the government reported that systematic cannabis shortages could be expected for years to come. Current projections predict that cannabis shortages will last well into 2022."

Read more: https://dailyhive.com/grow/cannabis-legalization-fails-canada
'via Blog this'

Alberta shows benefits of privatizing alcohol sales

Don’t believe what Ontario’s Beer Store is saying about liquor sales in Alberta | National Post - Ivonne Martinez:

June 20, 2019 - "In the province of Ontario, the airwaves are filled with debate and contradicting information about beer sales. Albertans could not be more united on beer sales: For over 25 years, Albertans have understood that liquor sales can be competitive, convenient, profitable and accessible without compromising safety. That’s why the Alberta system has a 90-per-cent public satisfaction rating.

"But Ontario unions and The Beer Store continue to misinform the public in an effort to protect their existing monopoly.... The Beer Store is currently running an ad campaign that ... perpetuates myths about the harm of privatization and blatantly distorts the truth about the Alberta liquor system ... to justify the monopolistic protection that persists in Ontario....

"The facts however tell a different story. Alberta has over 1,500 independently owned liquor stores ... that offer the largest selection of liquor products in Canada. Alberta liquor retailing accomplishes this by providing Albertans with convenience, competitive prices and the highest of social responsibility. Like Ontario, the Alberta provincial government regulates liquor sales, and liquor stores must ID anyone that looks to be under 25 years....

"And what about The Beer Store’s claim that a 24 pack of Coors Light is more expensive in Alberta than in Ontario? The Beer Store is owned by Labatts and Molson (National Brewers).... Molson itself ... set a higher price for its beer in Alberta....

"Other facts that are left out include the 12,000 direct jobs created by liquor retail in Alberta, contributing $866 million annually to provincial revenue and creating a $3-billion industry.

"Alberta has a fully open free market that doesn’t block products from other provinces or countries. As a matter of fact, Alberta has individual liquor stores that have more beer selection on the shelves than the entire province of Ontario....

"Ontario doesn’t have to look far for a successful liquor model. All Alberta liquor stores are standalone retailers, whether independent, chains or grocers. This allows our liquor stores to simply focus on making the best experience for consumers while keeping minors from accessing alcohol. Albertans can get wine, beer and spirits at one store. One stop to access the best selection of products from across the province, country and the world. One stop."

Ivonne Martinez is the President of the Alberta Liquor Store Association

Read more: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/dont-believe-what-ontarios-beer-store-is-saying-about-liquor-sales-in-alberta
'via Blog this'

Provincial trade barriers OK'd by Canada's Supreme Court

Supreme Court upholds law prohibiting Canadians, wherever they live, from buying beer wherever they want | The Star - Tonda MacCharles:

April 19, 2018 - ""Gerard Comeau wasn’t the only one shaking his head when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Thursday there is no 'constitutional guarantee of free trade' within Canada.

"'Money’s more important than liberties, I guess,' said the 64-year-old retired linesman.... Comeau’s bid to strike down the [New Brunswick] Liquor Control Act’s limits on cross-border beer shopping failed, but he became the champion of free-traders across Canada.

"Now some of his supporters hope all the attention his case, and the social media campaign dubbed #freethebeer, brought to the issue will galvanize provincial and federal leaders to drop barriers they say add $50 billion to $130 billion in extra costs to goods and services that cross provincial borders....

"The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the 1867 constitution did not impose 'an absolute free trade regime within Canada' ... [and] any decision to knock down interprovincial trade barriers would be a political one.... It cited the 'need to maintain balance' ... as long as the law’s primary purpose is not aimed at blocking trade across provincial borders.

"Any other interpretation, warned the court, could lead to a whole slew of laws being invalidated: environmental or public health regulations, agricultural controls on the production and distribution of eggs, dairy or poultry, for example, and 'innumerable' other exercises of provincial jurisdiction."

"Lawyer Howard Anglin, of the Canadian Constitutional Foundation, which intervened at the high court in support of Comeau’s arguments, ... believes the ruling actually provides an opportunity for a federal government or federal party leader to push to lower trade barriers, using the federal power to regulate trade and commerce....

"Freer trade between provinces could be a windfall for the provinces, said Anglin, who pointed to a senate committee report that accepted findings by Trevor Tombe and Lukas Albrecht. They say interprovincial barriers cost each Canadian household about $7,500 a year."

Read more: https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/04/19/supreme-court-upholds-laws-limiting-amount-of-alcohol-moved-across-provincial-borders.html
'via Blog this'

UK drug expert calls prohibition 'irrational'

Prof David Nutt: 'It's irrational to deny people access to LSD'- Radio New Zealand:

February 25, 2018 - "Outspoken UK drug expert David Nutt argues for regulated access to any drug less harmful than alcohol, including cannabis and Ecstasy. He is a professor of neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College London and author of Drugs: Without The Hot Air (2012).

"'My view is that any drug that is less harmful to the person that uses it than alcohol should be available as an alternative to alcohol - in a form where the harms are minimised,' he told Sunday Morning. 'That doesn’t mean a free market, that doesn’t mean opening up cannabis shops to compete with supermarkets selling beer. It means having access to cannabis, and ecstasy and other drugs perhaps, such as mephedrone and mushrooms - in pharmacies, possibly with electronic cards that allow you to have a certain amount per year.'"

"'Prof Nutt said in the UK the leading causes of drug deaths were tobacco, alcohol and heroin and opiates – all much higher than deaths from ecstasy (MDMA). 'Regulated access to drugs that are less harmful than alcohol will reduce the harms of alcohol, hopefully reduce the use of drugs more harmful than alcohol like crystal meth and P and heroin, and will actually overall reduce the societal damage from drugs.'

"Research on certain drugs and their potential therapeutic value was being denied, he said.... 'There have been two studies done ... and one of the most promising uses is in helping people come to terms with dying. Often under psychedelics people become "at one" with the universe. I'm very interested in that, in helping people deal with that terminal, difficult part of their lives. These two American studies showed that a single psilocybin treatment helped people become less anxious about dying.'

"He says opiates are not the be-all and end-all in terminal pain treatment. 'Under opiates you're constipated, you're confused, you have a dry mouth.... And using opiates to deal with chronic pain syndrome you can also get excessive use and people selling them on the streets so I think psychedelics offer an alternative.... If you allow people to take morphine for pain control, which kills in the UK nearly 2000 people a year, it's irrational to deny people access to LSD which kills nobody'....

"Prof Nutt was chair of the UK government’s advisory committee on the misuse of drugs until 2009, when he was sacked for suggesting alcohol was more dangerous than many illegal drugs.... Though alcohol was a leading cause of death under the age of 50 in the UK, politicians did not want to take on the alcohol industry, he says, so they make a show of being hard on drugs."

Read more: https://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/sunday/audio/2018633601/prof-david-nutt-it-s-irrational-to-deny-people-access-to-lsd
'via Blog this'

Indiana Libertarians hold drink-in against beer law

Hoosier hoist a cold one for liberty | News | tribstar.com - Scott L. Miley, Terre Haute Tribune Star:

"John Boroughs drank a Budweiser tall boy to toast what he believes is his right to buy a cold beer on Sunday. He was joined by about 60 others in a standing-room-only crowd inside ... a Ricker’s convenience store in Columbus.....

"His beer came from a cooler inside the store where employees check IDs and serve from a refrigerated shelf behind the counter. He sat in one of 28 seats at the store which had been refitted to obtain a restaurant license.

"Like-minded Libertarians from Jackson and Bartholomew counties participated in a Drink In for Liberty in support of reforming Indiana’s alcohol laws.

"Jay and Nancy Ricker, co-founders of the Anderson-based chain, were on hand. 'We’re the only state in the nation that has a warm beer and cold beer law. I don’t think people understand how unique, in a bad way, Indiana is in that respect,' Nancy Ricker said....

"Although Steven Buffington doesn’t drink alcohol, he was at Ricker’s as vice chair of the Jackson County Libertarian party. 'It’s all about principle for me. We should be able buy where we want to, when we want to, how we want to. If the state is going to try to push markets on us and force to buy from specific places, I don’t think that’s reasonable or fair,' Buffington said....

"'What I don’t like is the government making decisions on who can sell things,' said customer Brent Land. 'The only reasons for not allowing other high-volume retailers to sell it cold is the package liquor lobby ... When the government supports that, is the government trying to prop up a dying business model?'...

"About 71 percent of Hoosiers favor allowing all state-licensed retailers the right to sell cold beer, according to a survey released last week by the Indiana Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association which supports Ricker’s efforts.

"The survey of 600 registered voters also showed that 65 percent supported Sunday carryout sales and that 64 percent favored a repeal of the restriction on liquor.

"However, 67 percent opposed allowing minors into liquor stores and 59 percent opposed restricting the sale of spirits to only liquor stores."

Read more: http://www.tribstar.com/news/hoosier-hoist-a-cold-one-for-liberty/article_042b0335-bd21-5e48-bceb-a46ad1fff6ff.html
'via Blog this'

NB enforces beer monopoly despite court ruling

Why New Brunswick is vowing to keep busting anyone importing beer, even after judge said it’s legal | Financial Post - John Williamson:

May 16, 2016 - "Heads the province wins, tails you lose. This appears to be the response of the Gallant government to the recent court decision declaring unconstitutional New Brunswick’s longstanding restrictions on bringing alcohol for personal consumption into the province. The government has until the end of the month to appeal Provincial Court Judge Ronald LeBlanc’s ruling that the law violates the Constitution’s free-trade provisions by blocking the flow of goods within Canada. But already New Brunswick’s Public Prosecutions Office is — despite the court ruling — threatening legal action against residents that enter New Brunswick with more alcohol than is permitted by the provincial government’s liquor regulations.

"New Brunswick resident Gérard Comeau was charged by the RCMP in 2012 and fined $295 for illegally bringing in 14 cases of beer and three bottles of liquor from a Quebec border town into his home province. Under the New Brunswick Liquor Control Act, it is a crime to purchase more than one bottle of liquor or wine or the equivalent of 12 pints of beer from retailers outside of the province. Consumers are instead forced to purchase spirits from the New Brunswick Liquor Corp., a government-owned monopoly that charges double the price for beer as Quebec. "

"According to Luc Labonté, director of the province’s Public Prosecutions Services, the law restricting liquor imports remains in effect because 'in theory' the court ruling applies only to the person who brought the case — Mr. Comeau.... The Supreme Court of Canada has stated only superior courts — not provincial courts — can invalidate a law. Consequently, Judge LeBlanc’s decision is not a binding legal precedent....

"Judge LeBlanc’s ruling, however, makes any conviction under New Brunswick’s law unlikely. After the Comeau decision, anyone charged with the offence of importing alcohol will plead 'not guilty,' knowing his or her trial will rely on the newly established precedent.

"The Canadian Constitution Foundation supported Mr. Comeau in the beer case. The group’s executive director Marni Soupcoff explained, 'It’s true that "in theory’ the law remains on the books, but it would be ridiculous for New Brunswick prosecutors to go to court to enforce it now that one of their own judges has plainly assessed it as unconstitutional.' Ms. Soupcoff believes charging other New Brunswick cross-border beer consumers would be a waste of time and money.

'But costly enforcement that wastes time and money could be exactly what the province intends....
The punishment for New Brunswick consumers wouldn’t be the conviction, but the lengthy and costly court process itself.... Most people will, quite sensibly, keep suffering overpriced alcohol in New Brunswick rather than risk having to fight for their rights."

Read more: http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/why-new-brunswick-is-vowing-to-keep-busting-anyone-importing-beer-even-after-judge-said-its-legal
'via Blog this'

NH libertarians offer free rides New Year's Eve

Giving Drunks a Ride Home On New Year's Could Be a $500 Fine in the "Live Free Or Die" State - Keith Farrell, Libertarian Republic:

December 31, 2015 - "If you’re giving a drunk person a ride home in Portsmouth, New Hampshire this New Year’s Eve you could face a stiff fine. To be sure, you better not accept any gas money or a tip for your time. It’s part of the city’s crackdown aimed at the ride share service Uber. For one local man, the regulation spurred the idea to launch a free ride service for the holiday in protest.

"'I just want to get as many people home safely as possible,' said Christopher David.... David is a libertarian and a Free State Project activist. He says that the Portsmouth regulation and enforcement of ride share restrictions are motivated by pressure being exerted by special interests; specifically the owner of the area’s largest taxi company, Great Bay Taxi. As is usual in areas where Uber has begun to operate, companies like Great Bay Taxi lobby to restrict Uber’s operation as a way of limiting competition. In Portsmouth, it has gone even farther.

"Great Bay’s owner, John Palreiro, actually pulled his cabs out of the city the night before Thanksgiving in protest. He threatened to do the same on New Year’s Eve unless the city cracked down and began enforcing an existing ordinance against Uber.

"The restrictions and pressure angered David, who used to drive for Uber.... In protest, David has organized a free ride share service for the evening. He’s already had 40 passengers sign up for rides. David and the 10 drivers he has organized will be doing a great service for the community, providing safe rides for people who will most likely be inebriated.

"Originally, David and his drivers were going to accept tips, but when local police got word of their plans ... Portsmouth Acting Deputy Police Chief Frank Warchol disagreed. If the drivers offer completely free rides, 'then it doesn’t fall under the ordinance,' he said. 'If they accept donations, they would fall under the ordinance.'

"The penalty for violating the ordinance is $500 for the first offense, $1,000 for any subsequent offense.

"So David assures me that for tonight all rides will given completely free of any compensation. But he doesn’t plan on stopping there.

"'My plan is to launch a decentralized competitor to Uber,' David informed me.

"He’s already in the process of developing an app which he says will launch in about a month’s time. It’s called Arcade City.

"'The police are already threatening to fine users and it isn’t even out yet,' David laughed.

Read more: http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/giving-drunks-a-ride-home-on-new-years-could-be-a-500-fine-in-the-live-free-or-die-state/
'via Blog this'

Libertarian enters North Carolina Senate race

Libertarian joins race for Senate seat here - Mooresville Tribune: Local News:

December 9, 2015 - "Nic Haag of Denver, an information security professional and Marine Corps combat veteran, has filed to run as a Libertarian candidate for the North Carolina Senate District 44 seat.

"Haag joins a race that includes two Republicans – incumbent David Curtis and challenger Chris Carney – who will square off in a March 15 GOP primary. If no additional Libertarians file for office, Haag will be on the November ballot....

"Haag said his campaign will focus on issues 'regarding individual liberties, restoring the rights of the people in the era of ever-expanding government. (My) guiding principle in regards to good government has always been: The government is best, that which governs the least'....

"Haag said he has 'always been against government where [it] does not belong,' hence his positions on 'abolishing the ABC spirits monopoly. NC citizens should be allowed to buy spirits in a competitive free market, where selection is greater and prices are cheaper,' he said.

"Haag also advocates the legalization of marijuana in North Carolina and “using the tax revenue to abolish property taxes on vehicles and reduce income tax rates'....  Haag said he is 'confident a state with such deep roots in the tobacco industry will be more than welcoming to a cash crop that will bring about long-term economic stability.'

"Haag spent more than 10 years in the Marines and works as a technical advisor for a venture capital firm. He said he supports the idea 'that entrepreneurial spirit is among the most important things for a government to nurture. This is done by ensuring people are free from burdensome regulations, economic protectionism, and bureaucratic meddling.'"

Read more: http://www.mooresvilletribune.com/news/libertarian-joins-race-for-senate-seat-here/article_0cf38ea4-9e8d-11e5-a673-5bc4a6f3f01c.html
'via Blog this'

NB retiree sues for right to buy Quebec beer

Retiree at heart of cross-border booze-run case getting funding help - Colin Perkel, Canadian Press:

July 23, 2015 - "A man whose drive from New Brunswick to Quebec to buy cheaper beer ended in arrest said Thursday he's looking forward to airing his constitutional challenge in court next month as a defence crowdfunding campaign gets underway.

"In an interview from Tracadie, N.B., Gerard Comeau said he just wants to know whether he has the right to buy his beer in Quebec....

"As part of a sting operation, RCMP arrested Comeau, now 62, in October 2012 when he returned with 12 cases of beer and three bottles of liquor which he bought legally in Pointe-a-la-Croix, Que., just across the river from Campbellton. Police seized the booze and charged him with illegally importing alcohol into his home province.

"Cross-border alcohol shopping is a regular thing in the area and the retired power lineman had been making the run two or three times a year into Quebec to score beer — which costs about half the New Brunswick price — and lottery tickets.

"However, provincial law in New Brunswick — related to federal anti-smuggling efforts implemented at the height of Prohibition — forbids importing more than one bottle of wine or 12 pints of beer — about 19 regular bottles — from any other province. The restrictions, stiffer than importing alcohol from the U.S., carry a $292.50 fine for violators.

"Comeau's case has drawn support from the Canadian Constitution Foundation, which this week launched a crowdfunding drive in an effort to raise $20,000 for a fight that seems destined to be decided by the Supreme Court of Canada.

"A lot of people don't even know that provision is in the law," Karen Selick, the foundation's litigation director, said from Ottawa.... Section 121 of the Constitution is supposed to allow for the free flow of goods across provincial borders but, Selick said, a Supreme Court decision dating to 1921 that narrowly interpreted the section is at the heart of the dispute.

"'We think that case was wrongly decided and that enough time has gone by that the Supreme Court should look at it again,' Selick said.

"The foundation, a registered charity that bills itself as an independent, non-partisan organization that aims to defend Canadian constitutional freedoms, said the trade barriers benefit government monopoly sales agencies while constraining private business and citizens."

Read more: http://www.thespec.com/news-story/5749137-retiree-at-heart-of-cross-border-booze-run-case-getting-funding-help/
'via Blog this'
Crowdfunding site: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/free-beer#/story

Australian Senate launches inquiry into 'nanny state'

AM - Senator David Leyonhjelm pushes for parliamentary inquiry into 'nanny state' 26/06/2015 - AM with Michael Brissenden, Australian Broadcasting Corp.:

June 26, 2015 - "MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: The independent libertarian Senator David Leyonhjelm has won support for a broad ranging parliamentary inquiry into what he calls the 'nanny state'.

Essentially an examination of laws and regulations that restrict personal choice, with things like bicycle helmets, alcohol laws and pornography in the spotlight....  Senator Leyonhjelm joins me now. Senator,  ... where do you draw the line? The inquiry will be looking at areas, like I said, that restrict personal choice like bicycle helmets, but not drugs or firearms.

DAVID LEYONHJELM: Well, we're looking at marijuana, certainly not firearms.

The issue here is, to what extent is the Government entitled to legislate – and we're not talking about just giving advice - but to legislate, to protect you from your own bad choices. Bicycle helmets are a very good example of that: nobody is hurt if you fall off. If you don't wear a bicycle helmet, you're head's not going to crack into somebody else and damage them.

It's all about you and your safety, and yet the Government has decided that it's an offence to ride a bicycle without a helmet. Now, I personally think that's going too far, but the inquiry will be looking into that, looking for justifications.

 MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: But you have a view about firearms as well too, don't you, that that goes too far. So do you concede that those sorts of restrictions go too far? Do you concede that there's a role for the state in any of this?

DAVID LEYONHJELM: Yes, there's a role for the state. Firearms won't be brought into this inquiry, because that's not a nanny state thing; that's an issue about to what extent do you regulate the availability of firearms to protect other people if they're misused. That's a different matter.

What we're talking about here is, to what extent do you intrude, does the Government intrude into an individual's life to protect them from themselves.

So we'll be looking at the sale and service of alcohol, smoking and e-cigarettes, bicycle helmets I've already mentioned, classification of films and video games. That sort of stuff.

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: And do you have much support for this?

DAVID LEYONHJELM: Yes, it went through without objection from any of the other senators. It went through on the voices.... [O]ne of the reasons why the Liberal Democrats are a good party to take this up is because we take a philosophical view of it; we don't like the Government intruding into our lives except to protect other people.

But in each party, and I'm talking Greens, Labor, Coalition, there is always an issue, an individual issue that bugs them, and they'd like something done about it. But individual senators find it hard to do something about that when their party has a position."

Read more: http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2015/s4262236.htm
'via Blog this'

Class action suit against Ontario beer monopolies

LCBO and Beer Store 'sweetheart deal' lawsuit calls for $1.4 billion in damages - Market Business News- Joseph Nordqvist:

December 14, 2014 - "A secret deal signed in 2000 between the LCBO and the Beer Store, limiting competition between Ontario’s provincial and private alcohol monopolies, has resulted in a class-action lawsuit.

"The retail outlets have been alleged of being part of a 'conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices of beer in Ontario' and 'participated in illegal and secretive discussions and made agreements relating to prices and distribution areas of beer in Ontario.'

"The class-action lawsuit calls for $1.4 billion in damages. It has not yet been proven in court and the lawsuits need to be given the green light by a judge before proceeding as actions.

"The claim also demands $5-million in 'punitive and exemplary damages.'

"London, Ontario based Siskinds LLP filed the court documents on behalf of David Hughes and a company that operates a restaurant called The Poacher.

"Earlier this week the Toronto Star reported on a secret ‘sweetheart deal’ made between the LCBO and the Beer Store in June 2000.... As a result of the deal Ontarians can, for the most part, only buy larger cases of beer at the Beer Store. Prices of beer at the Beer Store are set by the three Belgian, Japanese, and American brewing companies that own the corporation. Labatt Brewing Company (AB InBev) has a 49% stake, Molson Coors Brewing Company owns 49%, while Sleeman Breweries (Sapporo) has a 2% stake.

"The Canadian restaurant industry group, Restaurants Canada, demanded that the Ontario government cancel this 'sweetheart deal'. It said that it has asked for an investigation to be carried out by the federal Competition Bureau.... According to Restaurants Canada, the deal limits competition and increases the cost of beer in bars and restaurants."

Read more: http://marketbusinessnews.com/lcbo-beer-store-sweetheart-deal-lawsuit-calls-1-4-billion/40861
'via Blog this'