LCBO / The Beer Store

[Edward Skira]

I work beside the globe and mail, and the closest LCBO is in First Canadian Place

And that one closes at 6PM and is closed on the weekends.

Try Union Station. Its small but at least it has regular hours.

 

[TKTKTK]

You should not have to walk from Queen to Winchester (that's where it is, I live across the street) to get wine. That's more than a 5 minute walk, closer to 10. I do it often. In this weather it's enough to make you say "fuggid, I'll go without". I work beside the globe and mail, and the closest LCBO is in First Canadian Place or on Spadina, just south of College. Great, and that's smack in the middle of downtown.

You don't have to walk. You can drive, or take a cab, or take transit - or if your alcohol commute time is that important, perhaps move closer to the LCBO? Maybe sleep out front?

I just think you guys are way over blowing the inconvenience factor.

Also, the argument that "it makes money for the province" is bogus. Should the province run everything that makes money? Perhaps they should distribute smokes out of the LCBO, i mean it would keep them away from kids, and lord knows they make cash. Why not a monopoly on petrol? Think of the revenue!

But we're not suggesting that the Crown take over more industries, just that it's doing really well with this one.

I like the LCBO, but it's mandate has run out. It was the control board, but now it actively markets liquor. If it's only reason is to make money for the government, I say, let someone else make that money.

It markets liquor in conjunction with controlling its distribution. That isn't a disconnect from it's mandate - unless the suggestion is that LCBO shouldn't engage in advertising at all. I don't see what precedent there is for that though. Government agencies advertise their services all the time.

Lastly, the situation with the Beer Store is a joke. I only go there now when they're open later than the LCBO, due to the lackluster (that's being as polite as i can be about it) service.

Service? I just walk up to the cash register, tell him what I want, pay for it, and it rolls out. It should be automated.

 

[adma]

As a non-drinker, I find the LCBO irrelevant except as a resource for empty boxes for storage...

 

[Dilla]

You don't have to walk. You can drive, or take a cab, or take transit - or if your alcohol commute time is that important, perhaps move closer to the LCBO? Maybe sleep out front?

I just think you guys are way over blowing the inconvenience factor.

What in the hell are you talking about? I don't have a car, and i'm not going to pay $10 in cabs to get a $13 bottle of wine. I'm not going to take half an hour (and another $5) on a streetcar, either. Any other major city in this or any other country that I've been to does not require this type of effort to grab a bottle of wine. Please tell me why we should. Besides, the main point here is that if the LCBO were privatized, this would not be an issue.

But we're not suggesting that the Crown take over more industries, just that it's doing really well with this one.

I know you're not suggesting that, I'm using this to point out the flaw in your argument.
What you've presented as a reason for the LCBO to continue to exist is that it generates revenue for the Provincial government. By that logic, why shouldn't the Province take over the distribution of any inelastic product? And "the LCBO existed yesterday, so it's different" argument is not going to sway me. That the LCBO exists today is no reason why it should exist tomorrow. It was created for a specific purpose, which it no longer fulfills...

It markets liquor in conjunction with controlling its distribution. That isn't a disconnect from it's mandate - unless the suggestion is that LCBO shouldn't engage in advertising at all. I don't see what precedent there is for that though. Government agencies advertise their services all the time.

It is a disconntect. The LCBO was created in 1927 after prohibition in Ontario ended. The LCBO was created specifically to discourage drinking, hence the "control" part of the name. Up until the 1970s service was appalling and utterly joyless. There were books up front (no pictures) and one had to look up what you wanted in the book, fill out the purchase number on a card, take it to the desk, and then someone would go back and get the products you had ordered. You weren't allowed to see product until you had already paid for it. The hours were worse than they are now, and the locations even fewer. They did everything they could to make it a unpleasant experience. It was literally like going into an MTO office. There was certainly no LCBO advertising. None.

From Wikipedia's entry on LCBO history:
"Until 1961, customers were required to obtain a permit to purchase alcohol and fill out applications whenever they made a purchase.The first self-serve store where customers did not have to rely on a clerk to retrieve alcohol was introduced in 1969."

So yes, I am suggesting that LCBO shouldn't engage in advertising at all. Advertising booze is exactly what the LCBO was created to prevent. There's years of precedent, in fact, there's the creation of the LCBO as precedent. Why do you think it came into existence in the first place, anyway? It wasn't to make money, it wasn't to control just distribution, it was to control and discourage alcohol consumption. At the time of its creation, many people in Ontario were quite unhappy about alcohol being legal at all, so this body was created to sooth the transition and keep those (almost %50 of voters) happy. It would seem, 80 years later, the transition is complete.

Now, they're trying to shove it down our throats to make money. It's really not becoming of a government agency to try and encourage its own people to get loaded, now is it? Especially when the current provincial government is so paternalistic about liquor laws. Mixed signals at best, hypocrisy at worst. The politician tries to look like he's so concerned and wants to prevent the "bad", but lets the agency, which his government controls, actively market the "bad" to create revenue. Nice.

The LCBO has become that which it was meant to prevent, and has obviously outlived its intended purpose.

Service? I just walk up to the cash register, tell him what I want, pay for it, and it rolls out. It should be automated.

Yes, it should be automated. Literally.

 

[Dilla]

And that one closes at 6PM and is closed on the weekends.

Try Union Station. Its small but at least it has regular hours.

Thanks for the tip.

That's still quite a hike considering how deep in the core I am.

 

[Earlscourt_Lad]

1) I think the Quebec model works well enough, and might be a nice compromise.

2) I don't think deregulation must coincide with a LCBO sell-off.

Let the LCBO compete and we'll see if their much vaunted selection is that much of a draw. If people truly think the LCBO is great, for whatever reason, they'll continue to shop there. I suspect a more fragmented set of stores would be the outcome of a deregulation. Higher end specialist stores for those with a particular interest, low end buckabeer type stores for those that like their beer cheeeeep, middle of the road stores for that segment, etc.

But could we please hold the line on the concerns about readily available booze? I think if you're the type to drink problematically, the ability to purchase alcohol is moot: you'll get it some how. Look to other countries that have essentially deregulated set-ups, Europe for example, and note that they do not seemingly have major drinking problems.

 

[Urban Shocker]

I find there are enough LCBO outlets sprinkled around the downtown, within easy TTC access, to keep my humble little wine cellar stocked. I replenish my favourites when they arrive at the LCBO, and that usually sees me through the next six months or so until they're restocked.

 

[TKTKTK]

What in the hell are you talking about? I don't have a car, and i'm not going to pay $10 in cabs to get a $13 bottle of wine. I'm not going to take half an hour (and another $5) on a streetcar, either. Any other major city in this or any other country that I've been to does not require this type of effort to grab a bottle of wine. Please tell me why we should. Besides, the main point here is that if the LCBO were privatized, this would not be an issue.

Who says it wouldn't be an issue? There are no guarantees to convenience in any market. I don't understand why people expect liquor to be an easy convenience. I don't believe it should be. I like that you can't buy Thunderbird at the corner store.

I know you're not suggesting that, I'm using this to point out the flaw in your argument.
What you've presented as a reason for the LCBO to continue to exist is that it generates revenue for the Provincial government. By that logic, why shouldn't the Province take over the distribution of any inelastic product? And "the LCBO existed yesterday, so it's different" argument is not going to sway me. That the LCBO exists today is no reason why it should exist tomorrow. It was created for a specific purpose, which it no longer fulfills...

You're just trying to extend the logic to unrelated topics. It would be like representing your privatization argument as a call to privatize healthcare as well.

It still fulfills the same purpose; it controls the retail sale of liquor. If anything, you concern stems from it fulfilling that purpose a little too well for your liking.

So yes, I am suggesting that LCBO shouldn't engage in advertising at all. Advertising booze is exactly what the LCBO was created to prevent. There's years of precedent, in fact, there's the creation of the LCBO as precedent. Why do you think it came into existence in the first place, anyway? It wasn't to make money, it wasn't to control just distribution, it was to control and discourage alcohol consumption. At the time of its creation, many people in Ontario were quite unhappy about alcohol being legal at all, so this body was created to sooth the transition and keep those (almost %50 of voters) happy. It would seem, 80 years later, the transition is complete.

Now, they're trying to shove it down our throats to make money. It's really not becoming of a government agency to try and encourage its own people to get loaded, now is it? Especially when the current provincial government is so paternalistic about liquor laws. Mixed signals at best, hypocrisy at worst. The politician tries to look like he's so concerned and wants to prevent the "bad", but lets the agency, which his government controls, actively market the "bad" to create revenue. Nice.

It is a mixed signal, but it's trying to give people the best of both worlds. It's still restricting and controlling the sale of alcohol, but without having to resort to overt tactics - it just doesn't make it as easy as walking into a corner store.

You make it sound as if the LCBO is engaging in huge, huge advertising campaigns, and that's really not the case. Their advertising and marketing is lush, but pretty minimal. You see most alcohol advertising coming from the producers themselves (because they're still selling alcohol through bars and restaurants everywhere). The advertising the LCBO DOES engage in is also very respectable - they're not shoving alcohol consumption down people's throats, they're merely educating the public on the products they carry. they're savvy in a way that few other alcohol advertisers are.

The LCBO has become that which it was meant to prevent, and has obviously outlived its intended purpose.

The LCBO wasn't meant to prevent the sale of alcohol, it was meant to restrict it. The crux of your argument hinges on the fact that you feel it still restricts it too much (since you can't get Wine at your corner store [as if you'd even drink the plonk you found there]) so it's evidently not outlived its purpose.

Yes, it should be automated. Literally.

Amen.

 

[TKTKTK]

But could we please hold the line on the concerns about readily available booze? I think if you're the type to drink problematically, the ability to purchase alcohol is moot: you'll get it some how. Look to other countries that have essentially deregulated set-ups, Europe for example, and note that they do not seemingly have major drinking problems.

Isn't public drunkenness a massive problem in Europe? Specifically the UK?

 

[Urban Shocker]

Yes, it's much worse now places are open later.

 

[Dilla]

Who says it wouldn't be an issue? There are no guarantees to convenience in any market.

My experience elsewhere makes it seem as though there would be many more locations. I have no reason to presuppose it would be any different here.

I don't understand why people expect liquor to be an easy convenience. I don't believe it should be. I like that you can't buy Thunderbird at the corner store.

Without trying to be rude, I don't particularly care how you feel about it. I'm sorry, but I have no particular interest in living my life in a manner which pleases you. I'm an adult, and expect to be treated as such. For you to say to me "I don't think you should be able to obtain alcohol easily" is more than a tad condescending.

You're just trying to extend the logic to unrelated topics. It would be like representing your privatization argument as a call to privatize healthcare as well.

I don't see it. Health care is much different than a consumer product. Does the government have a monopoly on, or even sell any other consumer product? No, so why this one?

It still fulfills the same purpose; it controls the retail sale of liquor. If anything, you concern stems from it fulfilling that purpose a little too well for your liking.

Well, of course it controls the retail sale of liquor it does so by government decree. The point being it "controls" it about as much as you could expect the private market to, so what's the difference anymore? What's going on here is I don't think the fact there's so few LCBO locations has anything to do with them trying to prevent me from drinking. They WANT me to drink, they're just a government run agency, and as such, they're not all that efficient at what they do.

It is a mixed signal, but it's trying to give people the best of both worlds. It's still restricting and controlling the sale of alcohol, but without having to resort to overt tactics - it just doesn't make it as easy as walking into a corner store.

Sorry, what's the best world part for me again? Oh, the part where the LCBO saves me from myself? Wow, thanks Dad, don't know what I'd do without you.

You make it sound as if the LCBO is engaging in huge, huge advertising campaigns, and that's really not the case. Their advertising and marketing is lush, but pretty minimal. You see most alcohol advertising coming from the producers themselves (because they're still selling alcohol through bars and restaurants everywhere). The advertising the LCBO DOES engage in is also very respectable - they're not shoving alcohol consumption down people's throats, they're merely educating the public on the products they carry. they're savvy in a way that few other alcohol advertisers are.

You asked for precedent, you got it. I don't think the above takes away from my argument.

The LCBO wasn't meant to prevent the sale of alcohol, it was meant to restrict it. The crux of your argument hinges on the fact that you feel it still restricts it too much (since you can't get Wine at your corner store [as if you'd even drink the plonk you found there]) so it's evidently not outlived its purpose.

Again, they're just not very fast moving, nor are they too concerned with their customers, as they're going to make money no matter what they do. As a result of this, they don't open enough locations. It's not because they're trying to prevent drinking. The "control" is incidental.

 

[gabe]

Isn't public drunkenness a massive problem in Europe? Specifically the UK?

Quebec has the best system last call at 3 am, considering they have 20,000 stores that sell beer compared to 1,250 in Ontario public drunkenness doesn't seem to be a problem there.

 

[Earlscourt_Lad]

Isn't public drunkenness a massive problem in Europe? Specifically the UK?

I dispute the usage of "massive", but if we accept the UK has a "massive" public drunkeness problem let's then focus on France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Denmark, etc. Or do they have "massive" public drunkeness problems as well?

 

[TKTKTK]

My experience elsewhere makes it seem as though there would be many more locations. I have no reason to presuppose it would be any different here.

But there's also no reason the LCBO can't open a location nearer to you either.

Without trying to be rude, I don't particularly care how you feel about it. I'm sorry, but I have no particular interest in living my life in a manner which pleases you. I'm an adult, and expect to be treated as such. For you to say to me "I don't think you should be able to obtain alcohol easily" is more than a tad condescending.

Well, the feeling's obviously mutual. *shrug* I don't mind condescending on an issue like this.

Well, of course it controls the retail sale of liquor it does so by government decree. The point being it "controls" it about as much as you could expect the private market to, so what's the difference anymore? What's going on here is I don't think the fact there's so few LCBO locations has anything to do with them trying to prevent me from drinking. They WANT me to drink, they're just a government run agency, and as such, they're not all that efficient at what they do.

They want you to drink, but they're restricting the retail sale to specific places. That's a pretty profound control - if it wasn't, you wouldn't be complaining about how difficult it is for you to get alcohol. It's not that different from establishments needing a liquor license to serve.

Sorry, what's the best world part for me again? Oh, the part where the LCBO saves me from myself? Wow, thanks Dad, don't know what I'd do without you.

You're not the only person in Toronto, I doubt very much laws are created with you in mind. It would be hard to argue that the sale of cheap alcohol like Thunderbird or Ripple in every corner store is beneficial to society. You'll see that far more often than you'll see private high-end wine shops opening up. Personally, I think that's an excellent trade-off.

You asked for precedent, you got it. I don't think the above takes away from my argument.

You gave historical precedent, I was pointing out that Government Agencies, in 2009, advertise their services. Why shouldn't the LCBO as well? What makes it less appropriate for advertising than, say, Service Canada? Get over what their mandate used to be - they've modified it to bring the best of both worlds.

Again, they're just not very fast moving, nor are they too concerned with their customers, as they're going to make money no matter what they do. As a result of this, they don't open enough locations. It's not because they're trying to prevent drinking. The "control" is incidental.

I've actually found service in LCBOs to be top notch; super friendly, super knowledgeable. I'm in no rush to see that change for the worse.

 

[TKTKTK]

Quebec has the best system last call at 3 am, considering they have 20,000 stores that sell beer compared to 1,250 in Ontario public drunkenness doesn't seem to be a problem there.

I'm all for abolishing the Beer Store. Beer and low-alcohol-content beverages are fine. I strongly oppose spirits and fortified drinks from being available though - and I believe that's pretty much the system in Quebec (though not the system that's been generally called for in this thread)