With the trade war between Canada and the United States ratcheting up by the hour, Canadian governments are about to be awash in red ink.

Provincial governments in particular will face a world of financial hurt, with the feds taking in any tariff revenue and provinces preparing to spend billions to help impacted industries and workers.

Ontario will likely be hit the hardest of any province, with job losses, a recession and big deficits likely on the horizon.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s government needs to be doing everything it can to secure the province’s financial position.

That’s why it’s crucial to make reforms to the way Ontario approaches the sale of alcohol. If the Ford government were to do away with Liquor Control Board of Ontario retail stores, while still maintaining the LCBO as the province’s wholesaler, Ontario taxpayers could save billions.

Consider these facts.

First, Ontario is losing out on over $100 million a year by not allowing private retailers to sell spirits. It makes zero sense for the provincial government to be perfectly comfortable with private retailers selling beer and wine but not spirits.

Second, Ontario wastes $1 million per new LCBO store built when compared to simply allowing a private retailer to fill the void. It’s clear that there’s an appetite out there in the private sector to build new locations where they could sell beer, wine, and spirits at no cost to taxpayers. Why are Ontario taxpayers paying to build new stores when private industry is willing to do so for free?

Third, Ontario could save over $500 million a year if the province stopped operating LCBO locations and allowed the private sector to sell all forms of alcohol, as is the case in Alberta. That’s not to mention the huge windfall the province would get from selling present LCBO locations to private retailers.

In this case, the province could still have the LCBO as the province’s wholesaler, responsible for providing alcohol to private stores in the same way that it provides beer and wine to grocery stores right now and all forms of alcohol to restaurants.

It’s through its role as the province’s wholesaler that the LCBO makes its money, not through running retail locations.

Importantly, keeping the LCBO as the province’s wholesaler means Ford would still have the ability to take American alcohol off the shelves in Ontario should the present trade dispute linger on.

That bargaining chip, which Ford and other premiers have used in the early days of Canada’s present trade conflict with the United States, would still be fully available to the provincial government.

LCBO retail locations were created nearly a century ago to deal with the sale of alcohol after more than a decade of prohibition. Government-run liquor stores were designed for the 1920s, not the 2020s. The rationale for the LCBO retail operations in the 1920s was morality. What’s the reason for its existence today, other than limiting consumer choice and allowing for more government control?

Ford said repeatedly during the provincial election campaign that just wrapped up that he was prepared to spend tens of billions of dollars to deal with the threat of American tariffs. Now, that tariff threat has very much become a reality.

When Finance Minister Peter Bethlenfalvy releases his next budget this spring, it will presumably include all kinds of new spending, which Ford ran on during this year’s provincial election campaign.

But the government was already in a deficit position before the trade conflict and the province is clearly short on cash.

Instead of running massive deficits and passing tens of billions of dollars of additional debt onto future generations, Ford and Bethlenfalvy should be looking for ways to find efficiencies and get the province in a better fiscal position.

In that context, generating savings by ending the LCBO monopoly — while still keeping it as the province’s wholesaler — makes all kinds of sense. After all, it was Ford who introduced more consumer choice for Ontarians by allowing beer and wine to be sold in grocery stores and corner stores. Why shouldn’t he be the very same premier to take the next logical step, both for the sake of consumer choice and for the province’s bottom line?

Originally published here

Kebijakan terkait dengan minuman beralkohol kerap menjadi isu yang menimbulkan pro dan kontra di berbagai negara di dunia. Aspek kesehatan hingga dampak sosial dari minuman beralkohol kerap menjadi fokus utama dalam kebijakan minuman beralkohol yang diterapkan di berbagai tempat.

Di Indonesia misalnya, aturan yang memberlakukan regulasi ketat terkait minuman beralkohol merupakan hal yang bisa kita temukan dengan mudah. Berdasarkan penelitian dari lembaga independen Komite Pemantauan Pelaksanaan Otonomi Daerah (KPPOD), setidaknya ada 428 peraturan daerah di Indonesia yang meregulasi peredaran minuman beralkohol, di mana 11% dari aturan tersebut mencantumkan pelarangan total (kppod.org, 2021).

Salah satu aturan tersebut yang paling dikenal adalah peraturan Qanun di provinsi Aceh, yang merupakan provinsi yang menerapkan hukum Syariah di Indonesia. Dalam aturan yang diberlakukan sejak tahun 2003 tersebut, seluruh kegiatan produksi dan konsumsi minuman beralkohol dilarang dan diberi sanksi yang keras (kompas.com, 28/6/2022).

Daerah lain misalnya, yang menerapkan varian lain dari regulasi ketat untuk minuman beralkohol adalah kabupaten Sleman. Di daerah tersebut misalnya, minuman beralkohol hanya bisa dijual di hotel mewah minimum yang berbintang 4 dan hanya boleh diminum di tempat. Selain itu, pasar swalayan besar seperti Hypermart juga bisa menjual minuman tersebut tetapi hanya yang golongan A (alkohol maksmium 5%) seperti bir (mediacenter.slemankab.go.id, 2/8/2024).

Adanya berbagai aturan tersebut, mulai dari regulasi sangat ketat hingga pelarangan total, dimaksudkan untuk mengurangi insentif seseirang untuk mengonsumsi minuman beralkohol. Tetapi, justru berdasarkan penelitian yang sudah dilakukan, regulasi minuman beralkohol yang terlalu ketat malah menimbulkan dampak yang kontra produktif dan menimbulkan efek yang negatif dan membahayakan. Dengan regulasi yang terlalu ketat hingga pelarangan total, maka hal ini akan semakin menyuburkan peredaran produk-produk ilegal yang sangat berbahaya.

Lembaga riset Center for Indonesian Policy (CIPS) misalnya, melakukan riset dampak dari aturan tersebut di 6 kota di Indonesia. Hasil dari riset tersebut menemukan bahwa, meskipun ada pemberlakuan aturan pelarangan peredaran minuman beralkohol, hal tersebut tidak membuat penduduk yang tinggal di kota tersebut menjadi berhenti mengonsumsi produk tersebut.

Bedasarkan wawancara misalnya, di kota Palembang, rata-rata konsumsi alkohol dengan volume ABV yang tinggi (spirits) dan bir masing-masing adalah 3,7 liter per tahun. Sementara itu, di kota lain sepeeti malang misalnya, konsumsi rata-rata per tahun sekitar 1,8 liter untuk bir, dan 2,5 liter untuk spirits (cips-indonesia.org, 2016).

Namun, dari konsumsi alkohol tersebut tidak semuanya dari produk yang legal. Tidak sedikit konsumen yang justru beralih ke minuman alkohol ilegal, atau yang dikenal juga dengan istilah minuman beralkohol oplosan. Tidak jarang, konsumsi minuman ilegal ini berakibat fatal hingga menyebabkan kematian. Dalam 9 bulan pertama tahun 2016 saja, tercatat ada sekitar 127 jiwa melayang karena konsumsi minuman beralkohol oplosan yang ilegal (cips-indonesia.org, 2016).

Hal ini terus berlanjut hingga tahun-tahun sebelumnya. Belum lama ini misalnya, terjadi kejadian yang memprihatinkan, di mana ada sekitar 3 pemuda di kota Sukabumi di provinsi Jawa Barat yang meninggal setelah mengonsumsi minuman beralkohol ilegal yang sangat berbahaya. Mereka sempat dicoba dibawa ke rumah sakit terdekat, tetapi nyawanya tidak bisa diselamatkan (detik.com, 27/6/2024).

Kejadian memprihatinkan seperti ini tentunya bukan hanya terjadi di Indonesia, dan ada banyak pelajaran yang bisa kita ambil dari negara-negara lain. Amerika Serikat misalnya, pada tahun 1920-1933 juga melarang minuman beralkohol, yang dikenal dengan nama prohibition era. Tetapi hal ini justru tidak membuat masyarakat Amerika berhenti mengonsumsi minuman beralkohol, dan justru menyuburkan peredaran minuman ilegal yang diproduksi oleh kelompok kriminal terorganisir seperti kelompok mafia (theguardian.com, 26/8/2012).

Selain itu, aspek lain yang juga sangat penting untuk diperhatikan adalah, korban dari adanya aturan larangan minuman beralkohol adalah kalangan kelas menengah ke bawah. Kelompok tersebut sangat rentan untuk menjadi korban dari minuman beralkohol ilegal karena keterbatasan ekonomi yang mereka miliki, dan mereka tidak sanggup untuk membeli minuman beralkohol yang legal, yang hanya dijual di hotel mewah saja misalnya dengan harga yang sangat tinggi (dw.com, 23/4/2018).

Dengan demikian, adanya aturan regulasi yang terlalu ketat hingga pelarangan dalam implementasinya merupakan aturan yang diskriminatif terhadap kalangan yang tidak mampu dan menengah ke bawah. Masyarakat yang dari kelas menengah ke atas memiliki sumber daya untuk membeli produk minuman beralkohol yang legal dengan harga yang tinggi, atau pergi ke wilayah lain yang memperbolehkan peredaran produk tersebut, di mana hal tersebut tidak bisa dilakukan oleh mereka yang dari kelas menengah ke bawah.

Sebagai penutup, adanya regulasi minuman beralkohol tentu merupakan hal yang perlu, sebagaimana yang diberlakukan di negara-negara lain. Namun, hal tersbeut harus berfokus pada keamanan dan keselamatan konsumen, serta memastikan produk tersebut tidak dikonsumsi oleh anak-anak di bawah umur. Jangan sampai, aturan yang terlalu ketat justru menimbulkan dampak yang kontra produktif yang membahayakan.

Originally published here

Canada is a cold place, and to get around my home of Ontario comfortably during the winter I’m lucky to have a top-shelf pair of American premium leather cowboy boots by Durango. They’re perfect, except for the part where they supposedly can increase my risk of cancer.

Yes, because my boots comply with California’s Proposition 65, they came with a Cancer and Reproductive Harm warning label in the event I were to excessively lick or dine upon my footwear. Everything from DVD players to couches now carry these labels if they’re sold in California, in case a consumer were to ingest them instead of watch a movie or take a nap. Considering the earth’s sun is a well-known carcinogen, it’s a wonder California hasn’t legislated some kind of labeling on the menacing gaseous ball elevating the cancer risk of everyone beneath its rays.

Perhaps the U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy will take action after he’s done frightening consumers about alcohol. Murthy’s latest advisory report on “the causal link between alcohol consumption and increased risk for at least seven different types of cancer” has America spooked. We experienced the same tactics in Canada.

The political collapse of Prime Minster Justin Trudeau in Canada temporarily killed a bill that would have had Canada follow Ireland in slapping cancer warnings on all alcoholic beverages. It’s part of a movement within the public health establishment via the World Health Organization, to shift world governments away from the message of “drink responsibly” and toward “no amount is safe”.

Read the full text here

The history of the LCBO is rife with the contradiction of making money off a social vice they take pride in suppressing, and its existence is based in a sense of moral superiority that it knew what was best for Ontarians when it came to alcohol consumption.

However, this moral superiority is contradicted by the fact the existence of this Crown corporation includes a largely forgotten history of racism, sexism and paternalism.

The LCBO opened its doors on June 1, 1927, with a lineup of customers eager to purchase alcohol. Journalists of the time described the scene as disgraceful, and the government agreed, since it placed the employees behind steel bars and would not allow customers to purchase alcohol without their individual purchasing permit.

These permits were given out only if the individual was deemed moral enough to earn one, and if the employees looked into a person’s purchase history and felt they had bought too much or exceeded government limits, they could arbitrarily refuse to sell them alcohol. It was quite difficult to get the law passed that would allow for the sale of alcohol in Ontario in the first place, and so the LCBO had to show it was taking its role as a “control” board seriously. However, its stringent temperance-inspired rules continued on to the 1970s when the sale of alcohol was commonplace and non-controversial.

The LCBO was, and is, a government monopoly on the sale of alcohol. This type of power allowed it to pick and choose who could work at the LCBO and who could purchase alcohol.

Women and people of colour were effectively not allowed to work at the LCBO in its early days, researcher Jamie Bradburn notes. Indigenous people in Ontario were not allowed to hold permits to purchase alcohol from the LCBO until 1959.

Named the “Indian list,” the LCBO maintained a list of people it deemed not responsible enough to purchase alcohol. This patronizing and racist policy was cemented through Ontarians having to apply for a Liquor Permit Book, which made citizens prove they were 21 years old, a resident of Ontario and of “good” character; this of course did not apply to Indigenous peoples.

It was up to LCBO employees to further decide if those who were of Indigenous and white background would be a good candidate for the ability to purchase alcohol. If they were not sure, the LCBO employee could reject their application because “ … a person of part-Indian blood, living in, say, an urban community, could be refused for such reason.”

Not only did it take until 1959 for Indigenous people to fully have the right to a permit to purchase alcohol from the LCBO, Bradburn wrote in his TVO feature, ”Buzzkillers: A brief history of the LCBO,” the corporation continued to view Indigenous people as a high-risk population after that time.

Those LCBO employees who did sell alcohol to Indigenous persons would be prosecuted under the Indian Act and the Liquor Control Act, according to the research paper “Administrative surveillance of alcohol consumption in Ontario, Canada: pre-electronic technologies of control” by Gary Genosko and Scott Thompson.

In addition to Indigenous persons, the LCBO was wary of those living in rural areas since they decided those might be places with heavy drinking.

The LCBO continues its legacy of self-proclaimed moral superiority, saying it is still proud of its ability to “embrace (its) obligation and opportunity to … govern the responsible sale of alcohol.” Despite recent advances in consumer choice in alcohol in Ontario, the LCBO still maintains a monopoly over the sale of spirits, and over wholesale alcohol in the province.

It is a mystery why Ontarians continue to put up with this system. The LCBO even has a page on “Honouring National Indigenous History Month,” with absolutely no mention of its own dark role in the history of Indigenous peoples.

Switching to a system that relies even less on the LCBO, or that eliminates the need for the LCBO, would be a positive change in Ontario. Although the LCBO generates revenue for the province, Ontario could instead be saving millions and even billions of dollars if the LCBO was simply the wholesaler, and not retailer, of alcohol.

Alongside these savings, Ontarians could also start seeing more of the alcohol they want on the shelves when LCBO employees stop being the only ones able to decide what to buy and inevitably sit on boxes of unused merchandise.

With the province of Ontario projecting a $6-billion deficit, it might do well to reconsider an archaic system once marred by racism, sexism and surveillance and which continues to run inefficiently and with a maintained sense of paternalism.

Originally published here

Giving Ontarians greater choice and convenience in buying alcohol won’t significantly increase social harms, including drunk driving

Three large health organizations are now criticizing Ontario’s government for its roll-out of alcohol in private stores. The Canadian Mental Health Association, the Canadian Public Health Association, and the Canadian Cancer Society have all called on Doug Ford’s government to create a strategy to mitigate the problems associated with liberalization.

Specifically, they worry that “more death, cancer diagnoses, and health-care strain” are coming because Ontarians can now buy alcohol at more outlets that are not government-owned by the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. All those issues are worth worrying about, of course, but is there any evidence that liberalizing where Ontarians can buy alcohol will make them worse? Not really.

First off, retailers who already sell age-restricted goods actually perform quite well in terms of active age-gating. Data from 2018 show that Ontario convenience stores have a 95.7-per cent success rate when it comes to properly asking for ID. In contrast, LCBO data from roughly the same period show that only 67 per cent of secret-shoppers in Toronto were asked for ID by LCBO employees. That is a stark but not surprising difference, given that private retailers have skin in the game when it comes to asking for ID. Failing to ask comes with harsh penalties for private retailers, whereas an LCBO with a bad track record of asking for ID doesn’t really face consequences.

Another major concern of the health organizations, echoed by OPSEU, the LCBO’s retail union, is that increased consumer choice and retail density will lead to an increase in impaired driving. But, again, the data do not show this to be the case. A thorough analysis by University of Waterloo economist Anindya Sen shows that provincial crime and traffic death/injury rates do not vary with the degree of regulation. Nor are per capita alcohol sales higher in places in Canada with deregulated access.

Data from Alberta also confirm this. Alberta fully privatized its alcohol retail sector in 1993. At the time, there were only 208 alcohol retail outlets; now there are more than 1,500. Before privatization, only 2,200 different products were available in government liquor stores. Today Alberta consumers have access to more than 31,000 different liquor products. Despite the greater breadth and convenience of choice in Alberta the number of cases of impaired driving has dropped significantly since the 1990s. The data only go back to 1998, five years after privatization, but the implications are clear: There were 12,597 incidents of impaired driving in Alberta in 1998. Last year there were only 8,197, a decline of 4,400 incidents. The rate per 100,000 people was 434 in 1998. Last year it was 174.

Not privatizing liquor sales would be costly for Ontario taxpayers. Not allowing private retailers to sell spirits, for example, leaves $100-$120 million in government revenues on the table. With a budget deficit of over $6 billion a year, Ontario should be looking to find savings by continuing to liberalize, not backtracking.

If Ontario simply stopped building new LCBO retail stores and let private stores operate and compete in selling spirits, it would save $106 million after one year, $590 million after five years and $1.3 billion after 10 years. If it were to follow Alberta’s lead and restrict the LCBO to being the wholesaler of alcohol, it would save $563 million per year. At the five-year mark accumulated savings would be $2.815 billion, and at 10 years, $5.63 billion. This is a big chunk of money that the province is simply wasting by persisting with the LCBO retail model.

Concerns about alcohol liberalization are not backed by evidence. Liberalization is good for consumers and taxpayers and needs to continue.

Originally published here

Immediate reaction to Chancellor Rachel Reeves’s first budget has not been positive.

Our regular columnist, CEO of the British Independent Retailers Association (BIRA), Andrew Goodacre, condemned the budget out of hand, calling it, “Without doubt the worst for independent retailers I have seen in my time representing the sector. The government’s actions today show complete disregard for the thousands of hard-working shop owners who form the backbone of our high streets.”

He said, “This Budget betrays every independent retailer who has fought to keep their business alive through recent challenges. It’s not just disappointing – it’s potentially catastrophic for Britain’s high streets.”

There were crumbs, or rather drops, of comfort. Reeves made much of the fact that there is a penny off a pint of beer (thereby saving nearly a shilling when getting drunk), although Simon Shelbourn, Chief Financial Officer for employee-owned Kingsland Drinks, pointed out that while publicans might be feeling optimistic, retailers are drinking the dregs of good fortune:

Read the full text here