The authors, who are academics, give a potted history of the LCBO, and outline its role as an agent of social control of alcohol consumption. For example
All this stuff is quite interesting, but it's hard to see the point they're making. Fortunately, the authors tell us that,From 1927 to 1962 the LCBO limited those who were legally allowed to drink by requiring a permit to purchase liquor. These permits required an application to the liquor board who would then grant or deny a request based on "fitness" to drink and "character."
The permit book resembled a passport in size and shape and was individually identifiable through a unique six-digit number. The pages inside consisted of a small section related to the individual, including name, address and employment, and another for records of purchases, including the date, liquor type, volume and cost. This tracking of every Ontarian's liquor purchases allowed the LCBO to live up to Ferguson's original mandate of "knowing exactly who is buying and how much."
Well, the first sentence is clearly true, but where's the evidence for the second? The authors don't provide any. If it's true, why don't we still need permit books? They end by admitting that we no longer regard profit-making as undesirable, and claim that it's now a goal of equal importance to "social responsibility," whatever that means:The point we are making is that the historic mission of the LCBO is not reducible to the question of how much profit can be had from alcohol sales. The LCBO continues to hold true to its founding principles.
I've read this article over several times, and maybe I'm more than usually dumb today, but I can't quite grasp their point. Whatever its history, just how does the present-day LCBO manifest this supposed commitment to "social responsibility"?However, this equality of goals does not allow the separation of social responsibility from maximizing dividends for the province and people of Ontario.
It seems to me that, just as society no longer regards making a profit from booze as unethical, we also don't regard actual consumption of the stuff as morally disreputable behaviour, requiring reluctant consent from a disapproving nanny state. In other words, society has outgrown the LCBO's original purpose. Is that what the authors are saying? Or are they making some other point which I'm completely missing?