Star article on LCBO

[antirealist]

I'd be interested to know what others make of this article from today's Star.

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

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."

All this stuff is quite interesting, but it's hard to see the point they're making. Fortunately, the authors tell us that,

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.

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:

However, this equality of goals does not allow the separation of social responsibility from maximizing dividends for the province and people of Ontario.

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"?

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?

[northyorksammy]

give your brain a rest and have a beer
If you never read the Star agian, you will be a happier person

[Josh Oakes]

What the LCBO loves to say is that yes, we and only we can protect you from the evils of alcohol. Except that they don't. They just sell it like any other store would, screening for kids and drunks...the latter debatable. That they actually trumpet this heavy-handed nannying as a desirable trait fo their enterprise should cause offense to all intelligent, responsible people. If I told an adult Ontarioan walking down the street that they're an infant in need of my protection, would that seriously be considered a good thing?

This nanny mission of the LCBO was outmoded from day one and if that's their reason for being, they shouldn't be. Not that I haven't been saying that all along.

[Mississauga Matt]

... screening for kids and drunks...

I remember when the Atrium at Bay store was in the Eaton Centre, and the staff used to pile the über cheap sherry by the cash registers so that they could get the rummies in and out with a minimum of fuss.

[pootz]

give your brain a rest and have a beer
If you never read the Star agian, you will be a happier person

Thanks Sammy, you beat me to it.

[tupalev]

northyorksammy wrote:
give your brain a rest and have a beer
If you never read the Star agian, you will be a happier person


Thanks Sammy, you beat me to it.

As I've mentioned before, I find it pretty amusing when people whip out their paper preferences as a means to impress us all. Thanks for your comments on the article guys.

I think the article, an editorial if I'm not mistaken from "guest contributors" to the Star, was put in simply as one of the dominant points of view in the province (one I and most members find a little ridiculous) in an effort to elicit reactions no doubt (boring middle of the road editorials do not sell papers apparently). The fact is the teetotallers of Ontario have convinced many that the LCBO is the only means to protect the moral fiber of this sacred land. That's the attitude that would need to be changed before anything happens to the LCBO (although antirealist, you make a good point in debunking their "point" - we seem ok with making a profit responsibly from alcohol in the Province).

Thanks for posting the article antirealist, certainly worthy of some discussion.


Jeff

[esprit]

I have always assumed that the LCBO's primary objective is for all us to buy ever increasing quantities of alcoholic beverages...and then not drink them.