dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2
share rss forum feed


elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
reply to Gone

Re: LCBO to open "Express Kiosks" in ON grocery stores

The problem is politically agnostic, the moral minority will make enough noise that the politicos will back down.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
said by elwoodblues:

The problem is politically agnostic, the moral minority will make enough noise that the politicos will back down.

I'm sure DKS will say something different, but the position of the moral minority on this issue is contrary to the majority public opinion when it comes to removing the LCBO's monopoly on wine and beer. We're still living in the puritanical dark ages and in a league shared with US states like Utah - yes, Utah - on this issue.

Outright privatizing the LCBO is another matter entirely. Most people have a cloudier and harder to define opinion of that, and most US states operate either government-owned stores for hard liquor or operate a government-owned distributor as they end up being a cash cow for the government. Keeping the LCBO for hard liquor would be within the realm of normal as far as North America goes. Wine and beer is not.


elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
Reviews:
·VMedia
said by Gone:

said by elwoodblues:

The problem is politically agnostic, the moral minority will make enough noise that the politicos will back down.

I'm sure DKS will say something different, but the position of the moral minority on this issue is contrary to the majority public opinion when it comes to removing the LCBO's monopoly on wine and beer. We're still living in the puritanical dark ages and in a league shared with US states like Utah - yes, Utah - on this issue.

But that's the rub, you and I agree that there should be change, and really don't say much else. Those who disagree are the most vocal and create enough noise to scare off the most politically astute from doing so.
--
No, I didn't. Honest... I ran out of gas. I... I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake.......


DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2
reply to elwoodblues
said by elwoodblues:

The problem is politically agnostic, the moral minority will make enough noise that the politicos will back down.

I disagree. There are already wine stores in grocery stores. This is just competition. The difference will be that hard liquor and beer will also be sold in those stores, which is identical to LCBO Agency stores (which are mini-LCBO's in convenience stores).
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.


DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2
reply to Gone
said by Gone:

said by elwoodblues:

The problem is politically agnostic, the moral minority will make enough noise that the politicos will back down.

I'm sure DKS will say something different, but the position of the moral minority on this issue is contrary to the majority public opinion when it comes to removing the LCBO's monopoly on wine and beer. We're still living in the puritanical dark ages and in a league shared with US states like Utah - yes, Utah - on this issue.

This isn't a matter which should be decidied by popular opinion. It's a matter of public health, public policy and taxation and should be decided as such.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
said by DKS:

This isn't a matter which should be decidied by popular opinion. It's a matter of public health, public policy and taxation and should be decided as such.

Public policy and taxation is determined by the the public at large that elects our leadership. This is an issue that the public at large are widely in favour of, and therefore public policy should reflect the will of that public.

As for the health claims, that's a straw argument. An alcoholic on a bender can get beer just as easily now from The Beer Store as they could from anywhere else selling it. The only difference now is that one company has a legally-granted monopoly to sell that beer on behalf of the LCBO. Whether they get that beer from The Beer Store or Sobeys is irrelevant.

For what it's worth, and as I said earlier, I do not believe that hard liquor should be sold anywhere but in the LCBO we have right now. Hard liquor is the biggest concern when it comes to taxation and the health issues you mentioned earlier. Keeping those sales at the LCBO is consistent with the way most other jurisdictions operate throughout North America. We have the LC in Canada, they have the ABC in the US.


DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2
said by Gone:

said by DKS:

This isn't a matter which should be decidied by popular opinion. It's a matter of public health, public policy and taxation and should be decided as such.

Public policy and taxation is determined by the the public at large that elects our leadership.

Um... no, they aren't. Health matters are decided on the basis of evidence. And in case your momma never told you, alcohol is bad for your health.

As for the health claims, that's a straw argument.

Not at all. The cost of alcohol to the health care system is astronomical.

An alcoholic on a bender can get beer just as easily now from The Beer Store as they could from anywhere else selling it.

That is an access issue, not a health care policy issue.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
said by DKS:

Um... no, they aren't. Health matters are decided on the basis of evidence. And in case your momma never told you, alcohol is bad for your health.

You said three things - public health, public policy and taxation. You are now arguing only one of those issues - the health aspect - but not the other two, but bringing the the condescension that goes with having the upper hand in an argument when you do not. Are you admitting your claims about public policy and taxation were made in error and your only real argument is health?

said by DKS:

That is an access issue, not a health care policy issue.

And, as I'm sure any reasonable adult never needed their momma to tell them, the location where someone obtains their beer doesn't change the impact it has on their health.

So what's your argument again?

peterboro
Avatars are for posers
Premium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON
reply to Gone
said by Gone:

said by DKS:

This isn't a matter which should be decidied by popular opinion. It's a matter of public health, public policy and taxation and should be decided as such.

Public policy and taxation is determined by the the public at large that elects our leadership. This is an issue that the public at large are widely in favour of, and therefore public policy should reflect the will of that public.

Successive governments have been elected by public opinion and and the public at large and yet here we are.

Seems once in power governments can make responsible decisions on what's best for you. Live with it.


DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2
reply to Gone
said by Gone:

said by DKS:

Um... no, they aren't. Health matters are decided on the basis of evidence. And in case your momma never told you, alcohol is bad for your health.

You said three things - public health, public policy and taxation. You are now arguing only one of those issues - the health aspect - but not the other two, but bringing the the condescension that goes with having the upper hand in an argument when you do not. Are you admitting your claims about public policy and taxation were made in error and your only real argument is health?

Not at all. Taxation and public policy are legislative matters. But you conveniently forget the negative health impact of alcohol, in your perverse argument to turn this province back a hundred years.

said by DKS:

That is an access issue, not a health care policy issue.

And, as I'm sure any reasonable adult never needed their momma to tell them, the location where someone obtains their beer doesn't change the impact it has on their health.

So what's your argument again?

You were the one attempting to make the point. I have nothing to prove. Increased access = increased consumption, with consequent negative health and social effects.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.


Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium
join:2005-03-12
kudos:8
said by DKS:

Increased access = increased consumption, with consequent negative health and social effects.

That must be why the LCBO has 844 stores and agency stores across Ontario, most open until 10 PM nightly, and is now proposing to open grocery store outlets in addition.

In their continuing marketing blitz including advertising and expensive glossy magazines, last year they offered 29,046 free product tastings to encourage consumption.

Some of this might be explained by the fact that the LCBO runs a profit margin of more than 50%, and over the past decade provided the Ontario government with almost $13 billion in windfall profit.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
reply to DKS
said by DKS:

Not at all. Taxation and public policy are legislative matters. But you conveniently forget the negative health impact of alcohol, in your perverse argument to turn this province back a hundred years.

"Turn back" ? Hah! Thanks for the laugh. The reality is that we're already living 100 years in the past when it comes to alcohol policy in this province.

said by DKS:

You were the one attempting to make the point. I have nothing to prove. Increased access = increased consumption, with consequent negative health and social effects.

Again, another straw argument. These kinds of arguments are made on numerous issues as a way to try and deflect the argument, but they are rarely based in any sort of reality or fact. Increased access would not result in increased consumption - the people who want beer can already get it. They're even encouraged to get it. Hell, it wouldn't even necessarily result in lower prices due to legislated minimum prices on alcohol. It would, however, result in increased customer satisfaction and choice.

If you are concerned about access to minors, I would recommend paying a visit to Niagara Falls, NY or Buffalo and try to buy beer at Tops or Wegmans. Be sure to bring your ID with you, because even with your older-than-dirt face they'll still verify your age with ID.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
reply to peterboro
said by peterboro:

Successive governments have been elected by public opinion and and the public at large and yet here we are.
Seems once in power governments can make responsible decisions on what's best for you. Live with it.

That, or they've just been liars for the past 25 years.
Expand your moderator at work


DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2
reply to Wolfie00

Re: LCBO to open "Express Kiosks" in ON grocery stores

said by Wolfie00:

Some of this might be explained by the fact that the LCBO runs a profit margin of more than 50%, and over the past decade provided the Ontario government with almost $13 billion in windfall profit.

Your point? You would rather pay higher taxes generally than taxation by choice when you purchase alcohol?
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.

peterboro
Avatars are for posers
Premium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON
reply to Wolfie00
said by Wolfie00:

That must be why the LCBO has 844 stores and agency stores across Ontario, most open until 10 PM nightly, and is now proposing to open grocery store outlets in addition. :uhh

Most stores are not open until 10 PM and even in the extended summer months many are still not open that late. 844 stores that challenged approximately 6.3 million individuals as to whether they met with their Challenge and Refusal program guidelines. Doesn’t sound like they are too anxious to increase consumption.
said by Wolfie00:

In their continuing marketing blitz including advertising and expensive glossy magazines, last year they offered 29,046 free product tastings to encourage consumption.

These marketing blitzes are sponsored by producers to increase market share not consumption. They are a revenue generator least the LCBO not realize all the income sources available and be susceptible to criticism
said by Wolfie00:

Some of this might be explained by the fact that the LCBO runs a profit margin of more than 50%, and over the past decade provided the Ontario government with almost $13 billion in windfall profit.

Now we get to the real complaint of many. If the LCBO makes so much lower the price so I can get cheaper booze. You see selfish and self centered people like me have decided to pay less tax and be subsidized by those who choose to buy alcohol. As a bonus those who buy more are more likely to cost the health care and legal system more and I don’t have to pay the same proportion. Another bonus is the higher costs mean less drinking so I am less likely to get whacked by some jerk-off drinking and driving. Isn’t it neat how the world reaches equilibrium…unless you frequent the LCBO disproportionately more that is.