Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:32 am
Eesh. =/
Ontario's longest running digital community dedicated to good beer.
https://www.bartowel.com/forum/
I believe the argument is (not my argument) that the immediate risks to third parties are much higher from the use of alcohol than the use of tobacco.esprit wrote:Why does social responsibility only relate to alcohol...the government allows independent retailers to monitor social responsibility for tobacco and, if you ask me, that is a commodity which should be even more controlled than alcohol...used properly, tobacco kills...used properly, alcohol does not...
Not even. Whenever I've heard the debate, the neo-prohibitionist always takes the position that they wish to God they did have control of tobacco sales, but know it would be impossible to obtain.detritus wrote:I believe the argument is (not my argument) that the immediate risks to third parties are much higher from the use of alcohol than the use of tobacco.esprit wrote:Why does social responsibility only relate to alcohol...the government allows independent retailers to monitor social responsibility for tobacco and, if you ask me, that is a commodity which should be even more controlled than alcohol...used properly, tobacco kills...used properly, alcohol does not...
-Josh
It's not scorn Steve. It's amusement at the fact that Lenny supports Dalty, Dalty supports the LCBO, the LCBO supports Lenny.Steve Beaumont wrote:Way to go, Dragon. Heap scorn upon the politically involved. How mature of you!
I hope your being sarcastic and don't actually believe its that simple.DragonOfBlood wrote:It's not scorn Steve. It's amusement at the fact that Lenny supports Dalty, Dalty supports the LCBO, the LCBO supports Lenny.Steve Beaumont wrote:Way to go, Dragon. Heap scorn upon the politically involved. How mature of you!
The entire picture has come into 100% focus.
you forgot "gooder" (from a recent "the good stuff" ad campaign...)cannondale wrote:4 Words:
More. Colder. Fresher. Better.
Not when your livelihood depends on it you don't! Not suggesting a I agree with dragon re. Len, but the NDP wouldn't exist without union member support, and if I was a LCBO employee, and union member, I'd certainly think twice about supporting any party that didn't like the status quo. For many people party support is very much a one issue thing and THEN adopt the other party values and policies as their own. That's why I stopped being involved in politics, there's no party that could possibly come out with a platform that represented my views on every single issue... mostly, though, I stopped because I couldn't stand the people that convinced themselves they DID agree with the party on everything.JerCraigs wrote:I hope your being sarcastic and don't actually believe its that simple.
I'm not going to delve into the vagaries of the various political stripes available to us in Ontario (though the Green party has made local beer and wine part of their platform as long as anyone), but during my four year stint at McD's I wasn't voting Reform in my quest to support the beef industry just because I worked there. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that most people support a political party for more than just one issue...
I wish it did not appear so hypocritical (ie "alcohol is highly taxable so let's "control" & exploit it in the name of 'social responsibility.'")esprit wrote:Why does social responsibility only relate to alcohol...the government allows independent retailers to monitor social responsibility for tobacco and, if you ask me, that is a commodity which should be even more controlled than alcohol..
Police do not have quotas.Belgian wrote:so cops hold back and just make their quota of "nuisance fines."