[DSC]

Shouldn't it be up to the free market to decide what we like and don't like? Buck-a-beer means that I can purchase larger quantities of it at a time for both my own personal use and as party favours. My guests won't give two fracks about the brand or pedigree as long as it tastes good and gets them hammered. You can be elitist and snob against it if you want to, but Doug is addressing a need that's at least for now being fulfilled.

I agree with you that a government has no business in setting minimum prices for things but I must say I will not be accepting any invites to your social gatherings if you will be serving cheap beer to guests who just 'want to get hammered'. The problem with any cheap beer (or wine, dare I say) that I have had (and I have had lots!) is that they actually don't taste very good (at least not until one IS 'hammered'.

 

[Northern Light]

I agree with you that a government has no business in setting minimum prices for things but I must say I will not be accepting any invites to your social gatherings if you will be serving cheap beer to guests who just 'want to get hammered'. The problem with any cheap beer (or wine, dare I say) that I have had (and I have had lots!) is that they actually don't taste very good (at least not until one IS 'hammered'.

Key here though is that reducing or withdrawing a minimum price, while not reducing the 'sin tax' or other structural costs leaves the price, for the most part, where it was or negligibly cheaper.

***

I have to say, in respect of cheap product that there really are some 1/2 way decent Italian reds on the general list that sell here for at or under $9 a bottle that aren't 1/2 bad. But for the way the LCBO prices in general and minimum pricing that product might be even cheaper.

Its perfectly true that the best wines, the most complex are rarely below $20 per bottle (and often a good deal more), but just this week a product consultant pushed me to try a $17 Ripasso that was simply excellent and great value.

So it is important to say price is not an absolute determinant of quality though there does tend to be a correlation.

 

[steveintoronto]

Key here though is that reducing or withdrawing a minimum price, while not reducing the 'sin tax' or other structural costs leaves the price, for the most part, where it was or negligibly cheaper.

Studies in Ontario have shown a correlation between minimum prices per volume and consumption rates, and how that impacts 'problem drinkers' more than casual ones. The claim made was an 8% reduction of consumption for every 10% increase in minimum price.

A quick Google isn't showing my source (I read it yesterday) but here's one of many analogs:

https://www.publichealthontario.ca/...ocuments/Alcohol_Price_Policy_Canada_2012.pdf

 

[Northern Light]

Studies in Ontario have shown a correlation between minimum prices per volume and consumption rates, and how that impacts 'problem drinkers' more than casual ones. The claim made was an 8% reduction of consumption for every 10% increase in minimum price.

A quick Google isn't showing my source (I read it yesterday) but here's one of many analogs:
https://www.publichealthontario.ca/...ocuments/Alcohol_Price_Policy_Canada_2012.pdf

Hmmm, while I'm sure it can make some difference, some of the time, and I'm not an advocate for $1 pints or wine by jug..........

I'm also not convinced that setting prices at a vastly higher level than peer nations is beneficial.

Both France and Italy have lower prices for wine than we do here, and both have lower rates of alcohol disorders.

http://gamapserver.who.int/gho/interactive_charts/substance_abuse/bod_alcohol_prevalence/atlas.html

I would also look at Canada's overall consumption level, #40 in the world on a per capita basis, and suggest than a minor uptick would not worry me unduly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_alcohol_consumption_per_capita

In respect of problem drinkers, I think the first thing is to socialize responsible consumption early on, treating it much as we do sex education.

When you normalize and remove the 'taboo' you remove an artificial impetus to try before your ready or do something irresponsibility.

I think the second step is ensuring that programs are available for addicts who need help, that cost is not a barrier to accessing them, and there is no wait time.

Then 'cracking the whip' on serious offenses that affect others, such as drinking and driving.

For all of that, I'm of a libertarian bent on such things. If, as an adult, you wish to consume a product, in a manner which minimizes any harm to anyone but yourself, a product about which you are fully informed; I'm not only content that that be legal, but that it not be priced arbitrarily or in a manner that is punitive to low-income earners.

But neither do I fancy subsidizing it or artificially lowering the price.

 

[steveintoronto]

^Minimum price per unit, not overall reduction of price per volume.

Here's when it went up last, why, and the effect:

Minimum prices for liquor sold in Ontario going up
The Canadian Press · Posted: Jan 13, 2012 3:37 PM ET | Last Updated: January 13, 2012

Minimum prices for beer and spirits sold in Ontario are going up starting March 1.

The increase will only affect 1.5 per cent of alcohol products sold in the province through the Liquor Control Board of Ontario's beer and wine stores.


Wines won't be affected because none of its wines are sold at the minimum price, said LCBO spokesman Chris Layton.

About 10 per cent of spirits sold by the LCBO and three to four per cent of beers will see their prices go up.

A 24-bottle case of the cheapest beer will go up by 55 cents, from $28.80 to $29.35. A 750 mL bottle of a mainstream spirit will go up by 50 cents to $23.90.

"Consumers will see very little change on March 1," Layton wrote in an email.

The Crown corporation is required to set minimum prices as part of its commitment to social responsibility.

But NDP Leader Andrea Horwath called the hike a "literal example of consumers being nickel and dimed."

"Sure, there is room for the LCBO to generate more revenue," she said.

"But the (auditor general) was pretty clear this can come from leveraging its buying power. It doesn't have to come out of the consumer's pocket."

Last month, auditor general Jim McCarter took the LCBO to task for failing to use its massive buying power to negotiate lower wholesale prices.

He noted in his annual report that on occasion, if suppliers submit significantly lower quotes than the LCBO expects, it will ask the suppliers to raise their wholesale price.

But if the LCBO used its power as one of the biggest buyers of alcohol in the world to obtain lower wholesale prices, it could then assess whether paying those lower prices would still allow it to increase its profit margins and meet its retail price objectives, he said.

The LCBO has defended its pricing policy, noting that it returned $1.5 billion to the provincial treasury in 2010-11.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/minimum-prices-for-liquor-sold-in-ontario-going-up-1.1184626

Note Horwath's duplicitous take on it!
Here's what she says now:

Ontario’s New Democrats said Ford’s efforts to reduce beer prices show his priorities are “completely mixed up,” and suggested the plan effectively gives subsidies to beer companies.

“These product placements or advertisements … have monetary value,” said NDP Leader Andrea Horwath. “Here we have a premier that’s cutting income to the very poorest amongst us as a priority and at the same time subsidizing buck a beer,” she said, referring to the Tories’ plan to cancel a basic income pilot project.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4373758/ontario-buck-a-beer/

Back to my original point:

Does Minimum Pricing Reduce Alcohol Consumption? The Experience of a Canadian Province
Article in Addiction 107(5):912-20 · December 2011 

Minimum alcohol prices in British Columbia have been adjusted intermittently over the past 20 years. The present study estimates impacts of these adjustments on alcohol consumption. Time-series and longitudinal models of aggregate alcohol consumption with price and other economic data as independent variables. British Columbia (BC), Canada. The population of British Columbia, Canada, aged 15 years and over. Data on alcohol prices and sales for different beverages were provided by the BC Liquor Distribution Branch for 1989-2010. Data on household income were sourced from Statistics Canada. Longitudinal estimates suggest that a 10% increase in the minimum price of an alcoholic beverage reduced its consumption relative to other beverages by 16.1% (P < 0.001). Time-series estimates indicate that a 10% increase in minimum prices reduced consumption of spirits and liqueurs by 6.8% (P = 0.004), wine by 8.9% (P = 0.033), alcoholic sodas and ciders by 13.9% (P = 0.067), beer by 1.5% (P = 0.043) and all alcoholic drinks by 3.4% (P = 0.007). Increases in minimum prices of alcoholic beverages can substantially reduce alcohol consumption.

Does Minimum Pricing Reduce Alcohol Consumption? The Experience of a Canadian Province | Request PDF. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/public...umption_The_Experience_of_a_Canadian_Province

 

[Jasmine18]

I think its time to put end to the paternalistic attitudes of the past on booze.

 

[steveintoronto]

I think its time to put end to the paternalistic attitudes of the past on booze.

"Paternalistic"?

Ford didn't reduce the drinking age, or the 'age of majority'. You think he should? How about the minimum age for sex? And not allow them to be educated on what it entails?

 

[Northern Light]

"Paternalistic"?

Ford didn't reduce the drinking age, or the 'age of majority'. You think he should? How about the minimum age for sex? And not allow them to be educated on what it entails?

Ok, everyone, prepare to be shocked............

In Jasmine's defense, I understand the sentiment. I also agree w/allowing the sale of wine/beer in supermarkets/private stores, as is done though most of the developed world without issue. The prescriptive notion of having to have few points of sale, could, I think, be reasonably called paternalistic.

The minimum price thing certainly has a nanny-state element to it as well. "We know better than you, what's good for you" is the justification, which I do find a tad condescending. Its also a bit of a fib since the real justification has long been keeping the big brewers happy, keeping the profit the LCBO generates, and keeping OPSEU happy, but only the middle of these ever gets much public admission.

***

Though you asked the questions of Jasmine, I'll offer than I do indeed favour dropping the legal drinking age, at least to 18, as it is in Quebec and Manitoba. But I'll also share that I enjoyed my first glass of wine, in a restaurant on Front Street at age 14 (I went in mid-day on a Sunday, with a globe and mail tucked under my arm, I had a bit of 5'o clock shadow), they gave me a wine list, I ordered!

The world didn't fall in, I didn't become an addict or otherwise consume in any volume or irresponsibly.

I'm not suggesting the age actually be that low, but in most of Europe its 16 in restaurants, but typically around 12/13 at home.

All of these countries allow legal drinking at 16 or 17.

Austria, Belgium, Congo, Cyprus, Denmark, Dominica, Germany, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Morocco, Portugal, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Spain, Switzerland.

While France is nominally higher, I can tell you in practice, its not.

In respect of voting, I'm open to dropping the legal age to 16, though that's mostly because I believe in no taxation w/o representation and many in that age group work.

Finally, in respect of the age of consent, its already 16 with a 5-year close-in-age exception down to 14 (much lower than the other ages). That's also federal, no provincial, but I digress.

I would point out its legal to get pregnant or get someone pregnant at 16, but not to have a pint. Not sure I can rationalize that.

My strong bias is against criminalizing personal choices that don't victimize others. That's not the same as endorsing bad ideas, its suggesting we don't criminalize bad judgement, unto itself.

 

[W. K. Lis]

From link.
Minister of Education, Lisa M. Thompson.

lol

 

[steveintoronto]

From link.
Minister of Education, Lisa M. Thompson.

lol

Exactly. Is that "Paternalism"? NL: You missed the whole gist of questioning the use of the term "Paternalism". It's sexist, to say the least. Btw: I'm European, and from a family that thinks Ontarians are *Victorian*! How's that for counter-sexism? (In fact, it isn't, but that's a whole other discussion).

My asking "do you think he should reduce the minimum age for sex" was a set-up double entendre with reference to the 'sex-education' imbroglio:
"And not allow them to be educated on what it entails?"

 

[Jasmine18]

It was paternalistic because its like the people of Ontarian are to stupid to have much looser alcohol laws.

 

[steveintoronto]

It was paternalistic because its like the people of Ontarian are to stupid to have much looser alcohol laws.

That's not "paternalistic". That's not controlling of women, it's controlling of society in general. Thus Victorian Toronto: The Power of the Middle Class

Btw: On "Age of Consent" it's not absolute.

In Canada, the age of consent for sexual activity is 16, meaning that persons younger than 16 cannot legally consent to sex. However, there are exceptions. The Criminal Code of Canada recognizes that 14- and 15-year-olds may consent to sexual activity if the older person is no more than five years older than the minor, and if the minor is not in a relationship of authority, trust or dependency with the older person.

There is also an upward exception to the law. The age of consent is risen to 18 if the young person is exploited by the sexual activity. A charge of sexual exploitation could be brought against a person who is in a position of authority or trust over the young person. Other sexual exploitation cases involve pornography and prostitution involving someone younger than 18.

https://www.nrlawyers.com/blog/2015...consent-in-ontario-are-there-exceptions.shtml

However, according to interpretation of Ford's edict on sexual education, they can legally have sex at that age, but not be taught the implications.

But hey...Buck a Beer!

 

[PinkLucy]

It was paternalistic because its like the people of Ontarian are to stupid to have much looser alcohol laws.

Before you pass comments on the supposed intelligence of your fellow Ontarians, you should run spell check/grammar check.

 

[Northern Light]

The word may be sexist in that 'maternalistic' is certainly not a substitute, nor is there really a gender-neutral equivalent...

Maybe 'patronizing'.....but.....not really the same. Moreover, patron derives from the latin for father as well.

The definition I see is :

paternalism
noun

1. the attitude or policy of a government or other authority that manages the affairs of a country, company, community, etc, in the manner of a father, esp in usurping individual responsibility and the liberty of choice

In that context, its use seems reasonable here.

 

[Northern Light]

Back to our normal programming, LOL

Martin Regg Cohn of the Star has a piece on the governments legislative/legal/judicial problems.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/sta...s-are-catching-up-to-fords-unlawful-ways.html