Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozabald
Good riddances to get rid of the LCBO. It's an archaic holdover from the end of prohibition. Let the private sector sell liquor. It's been successful in Alberta and Saskatchewan, which got rid of their government stores entirely; and in provinces such as BC which has a very large private sector retail component in addition to government stores.
|
The LCBO is getting harder to defend. The primary reasons for defending it are that it's a cash cow for the government and that it pays its workers a decent living. Those are great things, but they're not the reason why we should have a publicly-owned liquor monopoly.
The reason we have publicly-owned companies is to provide services that the private market can't deliver because it would result in market failure or can't deliver in the public interest. I think it's pretty clear that the distribution and sale of liquor is something the private market can deliver efficiently everywhere else, so there goes argument 1. Argument 2 is that a public liquor store can gatekeep the evils of alcohol, but I frankly don't really see it.
Up until recently, a sort of weak case could be made that the LCBO provides a diverse selection of products - especially in smaller markets that wouldn't normally support this through private liquor stores. A few things have happened:
- the first is online shopping. You should be able to buy rare bottles from your home wherever you live.
- the second is the rise in independent craft breweries, wineries and distillers and the fact that the LCBO won't stock them unless they can guarantee a minimum run that exceeds what they can produce.
- and, finally, the LCBO has become more monotonous in its selection in the last 10 years, especially for wine. It used to be that if a Vintages section could stock 1,000 bottles of wine (let's say for argument), then they'd stock 10 bottles each of 100 different wines. Nowadays it's more like 20 bottles of 50 different wines.