The Ontario Public Health Association … cites multiple studies showing that increases in the number of places where alcohol can be bought in Ontario, and in other jurisdictions, have already led to more consumption and more of the harms that come with it, such as suicides, drunk driving, emergency-room visits and higher rates of cancer.

I enjoy booze, but I like that it’s hard to get. I don’t need any more encouragement to mess up my liver.

  • Gwenn@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Don’t even like Ford but this is pretty standard. These puritan era alcohol restrictions need to end.

  • nbailey@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    It’s sad that our regulations about alcohol sales are so restrictive, but it’s unfortunately very necessary because of how our built environment exists. It’s correlated with drunk driving deaths because there’s not enough ways to get home that aren’t driving. We can’t really fix one without the other. I’d love to have a European-style picnic with wine I bought at the store on the corner, but that means at least 10% of the people on the road are going to be drunk driving at any given time which isn’t ideal.

    • sapetoku@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Yo can buy wine and beer in corner stores and drink in parks all over Quebec and it’s not a problem. Ontario isn’t different, except for the persistent smell of prohibition (which started in Ontario!).

      They said the same thing about weed stores and there hasn’t been any increase in accidents.

      Those who want to drink will drink, making it more accessible won’t change that. It’ll be nice not having to drive multiple kilometres to get a sixpack.

    • Fiat_Nox@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      I lived in an EU city in the mid/late 00s, and one of the nicest things was never having to worry about who was the DD. It wasn’t a big city, and quite compact. Walk 15 minutes and multiple pub and restaurant options. The equivalent of CAD$25 including tip would get you and 3-4 friends out and back to a respectable chunk of the city.

    • INTERNET_RYAN@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      This means we’d actually have to make our justice system actually punish drunk and careless driving. The best way to commit murder in Canada is with a car, you will get out in a couple of years!

    • sbv@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      There’s also the increased suicides, emergency room visits, and cancer rates.

      Access to alcohol is fine, but it shouldn’t be encouraged. A little bit of friction discourages access, and helps people moderate themselves.

  • nelsondelmonte@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    I’m in favour of this, if for no other reason than the Beer Store needs to die, or at the least the sweetheart deal with the province needs to. Absolutely ludicrous that a company owned by foreign corporations is granted a monopoly over the sales of 12 and 24 packs of beer and distribution rights to restaurants and bars. They’ve done far too good a job of fooling the public into thinking it’s government run while they fleece us and lobby away our choice.

    • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Not worth it. Add a bunch of actual societal issues to fix an ideological issue (oh no, a foreign capitalist instead of a domestic one) that won’t actually benefit anyone here.

      • nelsondelmonte@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        This feels like pearl clutching to me…are there any stats to support that things are measurably worse in Quebec where they’ve had beer in convenience stores for ages?

        • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          Are you seriously asking if the FRENCH drink more than Ontario, the most boring and repressed place in all of Canada? I mean I don’t know but my gut says yes?

          Okay, let me google that for you… In 2021-2022, Canadians drink 3.9 beers a week. Ontarians drink 3.7 beers a week, and Québécois drink 4.3 beers a week. So yes, there is a significant difference, but I am not qualified to say why, and I’m not likely to accept that you are, either.

          Incidentally, I also learned that ten years ago governments in Canada earned $441 of tax revenue a year from alcohol from each drinking age Canadian. That’s not nothing. So DoFo might believe he has an incentive to increase drinking to improve his short term outlook, rather than actually looking out for our best interests.

          • EhForumUser@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            Thing is, the reason The Beer Store exists as its own privately owned entity and not integrated into the government-controlled LCBO is because beer is considered to be the least dangerous alcoholic beverage. We have not believed it needs the same government oversight.

            If we are changing our tune about the dangers of beer then the Master Framework Agreement still has to go and the LCBO needs to take control of the beer market. There is simply no justification for the Master Framework Agreement no matter how you slice it.

            If we still believe that beer is a less dangerous alcoholic drink, as we always have, then your link is troubling. Ontario consumes substantially more spirits – considered to be the most dangerous drink – as compared to Quebec. If people are going to drink, we would benefit from encouraging them to drink the least dangerous option.

  • lexcyn@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    Isn’t that his plan, though, to make us all stoned and drunk as much as possible to ignore what he’s doing to our province?

    • Musicgasm@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      He’s definitely trying to distract from more serious issues just like he did with his “buck a beer” campaign.

    • ThatBlueThing@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      I assumed it was a way of raising taxes without raising taxes. Increase availability to increase consumption, get more revenue.

    • Gazing2863@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      I’m almost convinced Trudeau did the weed in the beginning for similar reasons. Though I support what Doug is doing here, and what Trudeau did regarding weed, I do like to entertain the conspiracy theory thinking too. The less sober society is the easier it is to make bad policy decisions without as much pushback :D

      • psvrh@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        We legalized weed because a) people who got in at the ground floor got rich, and b) it’d hopefully get everyone to forget about his other keystone promise: electoral reform.

        • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          Fuckers like Fantino who spent decades demonizing and criminalizing us, making all sorts of outrageous moral judgements towards us, warping public policy and brainwashing the olds, but then he’s poised with millions of dollars to exploit us the moment it’s legal.

          • psvrh@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            And Bill Blair. And more than a few others.

            I don’t really have any skin in the cannabis game either way, but our ethics regulations needed serious work, because a lot of well-connected people just coincidentally made a lot of money on it.

            I’d also add that this is why legalization happened, but electoral reform didn’t: no rich folks, nor anyone in the LPC and CPC hierarchy, was going to get rich off of electoral reform.

    • Gazing2863@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      Any reason you’re comparing to the UK and not the closer America? Always funny seeing how casually people can go into something like a convenience store and pickup some booze. Makes us seem so weirdly restrictive.