[Brenda]

As long as I pay taxes and duty when I bring US beer across the border, I guess the state has everything to do with the price of beer...

[Sapio]

Well no one should pay taxes or duty to bring stuff across the border. 2nd the state should be involved in beer and right now it is.

[BAT119]

Back in my days of wild partying the price of booze didn't matter and I'm sure it is the same today, people who drink don't care how much it costs These days I can easily afford more than I can drink, I just can't stay awake that long!

[ridenrain]

CommanderSock CommanderSock:

ridenrain ridenrain:

Drugs are illegal.
Prostitution is a mix and Homosexual marriages are supported by the Conservative Party.
If you want these things legal, you should advise the Liberal party to run these things on their platform, rather than try and sneak them through against the will of Canadian voters.

The Liberal party does listen to it's members, dosen't it?

In 2004 Paul Martin promised he would legalize marijuana. The issue has taken a back seat due to 2006 election outcome, and now, other more important concerns overshadow drug use.

The Cons don't support prostitution or gay marriage. Unless were're thinking of different conservative parties.

Do the liberals listen to its voters? Who knows...I guess as much as the con party listens to its voters.

ridenrain ridenrain:

California had an absolute bumper crop for wines in the last few years and their products have been good and plentiful. None of those benefits were passed along to Canadians because the marketing boards couldn't trust Canadians to buy good, inexpensive wine.
Somehow the rest of the world survives but the governments of Canada still needs to treat us like babies.

Agreed 100%!

That was aimed back at Derby but that's ok.

If the taxes actually went to health related issues, I doubt amnyone would care that much but it just goes into general revenue and that's what I think ticks most Canadians off the most.

We need a Boston Tea Party.

[DerbyX]

ridenrain ridenrain:

DerbyX DerbyX:

ridenrain ridenrain:

Thank you for protecting me, oh great Liberal nanny state.

OH, BTW, funny how you don't seem to complain when the great conservative nanny state uses the law to protect us from drugs, prostitution, and the immorality of homosexual marriages.

Drugs are illegal.
Prostitution is a mix and Homosexual marriages are supported by the Conservative Party.
If you want these things legal, you should advise the Liberal party to run these things on their platform, rather than try and sneak them through against the will of Canadian voters.

The Liberal party does listen to it's members, dosen't it?


California had an absolute bumper crop for wines in the last few years and their products have been good and plentiful. None of those benefits were passed along to Canadians because the marketing boards couldn't trust Canadians to buy good, inexpensive wine.
Somehow the rest of the world survives but the governments of Canada still needs to treat us like babies.

Once again you fail to understand the reality of the situation.

You railed against the "Liberal nanny state" because Ontario raised the minimum cost for beer, a move that omni-Conservative Alberta apparently did last year.

That alone defeats your arguement. You were then presented with compelling legal reasons why this move is legitamite and to top off your defeated arguement its quite apparent that the move is fiscal in nature.

All in all your crying about a "Liberal" nanny state is BS especially considering you favour a conservative nanny state using the law to enforce your own personal moral code.

BTW, the CPC is against prostution and has shown itself to be against SSM with Harper having tried again and again to restore the "traditional" interpretation of marriage as one man and one women.

All in all your hysterics about a Liberal nanny state just because they raised the price of beer (which does go to healthcare BTW) is ultra-hypocritical considering your party and you yourself favour its own version of a nanny state with laws designed to "protect us" from ourselves and whatever immorality we so choose.

[thirteen31]

ridenrain ridenrain:

California had an absolute bumper crop for wines in the last few years and their products have been good and plentiful. None of those benefits were passed along to Canadians because the marketing boards couldn't trust Canadians to buy good, inexpensive wine.
Somehow the rest of the world survives but the governments of Canada still needs to treat us like babies.

American Marketing boards couldn't trust Canadians to buy good, inexpensive wine because we do buy good, inexpensive wine - just not yours.

[ziggy]

thirteen31 thirteen31:

ridenrain ridenrain:

California had an absolute bumper crop for wines in the last few years and their products have been good and plentiful. None of those benefits were passed along to Canadians because the marketing boards couldn't trust Canadians to buy good, inexpensive wine.
Somehow the rest of the world survives but the governments of Canada still needs to treat us like babies.

American Marketing boards couldn't trust Canadians to buy good, inexpensive wine because we do buy good, inexpensive wine - just not yours.

Bloody Americans anyways.

[Toro]

Alcohol is a racket.

I used to work for a beer importer. We used to sell a 24-flat for $4.20 to the LCBO who would turn around and sell it for $28.

[thirteen31]

Yes, but it's apparently for our own good that the prices are not too cheap. Hell, if it were cheap we would want it too much...or so that's the reasoning they gave us for the price hike.

[Toro]

Health is far down the list of reasons for restricting the sale of alcohol in Canada. Its all about money. The government is happy because they rake in a lot of doe. The unions are happy because their members make a lot of money. The beer companies, or at least the big beer companies, are happy because it reinforces their oligopolistic power in the market.

When I worked in Ontario, LCBO employees were considered "essential employees" and thus not allowed to strike. Teachers and policemen could strike, but not liquor employees. That pretty tells you how reliant the government is on booze sales.

[DerbyX]

Toro Toro:

Health is far down the list of reasons for restricting the sale of alcohol in Canada. Its all about money. The government is happy because they rake in a lot of doe. The unions are happy because their members make a lot of money. The beer companies, or at least the big beer companies, are happy because it reinforces their oligopolistic power in the market.

When I worked in Ontario, LCBO employees were considered "essential employees" and thus not allowed to strike. Teachers and policemen could strike, but not liquor employees. That pretty tells you how reliant the government is on booze sales.

Of course it is. Without its revenue the shortfall would be made up for in other taxes. The notion that raising the price is Liberal nanny state control is beyond ludicrous speed.

[ziggy]

When the unions started striking every summer in Alberta they just privatized the ALCB.

Best thing that ever happened.

Their used to be lineups for rations,you were allowed 2 cases a day if they even had any.

[thirteen31]

Toro Toro:

Health is far down the list of reasons for restricting the sale of alcohol in Canada. Its all about money. The government is happy because they rake in a lot of doe. The unions are happy because their members make a lot of money. The beer companies, or at least the big beer companies, are happy because it reinforces their oligopolistic power in the market.

When I worked in Ontario, LCBO employees were considered "essential employees" and thus not allowed to strike. Teachers and policemen could strike, but not liquor employees. That pretty tells you how reliant the government is on booze sales.

Of course, it's all about the money and control. Sadly, beer is still cheaper than a single-serve bottle of water and 8oz / 500ml of milk.

[Strutz]

Toro Toro:

When I worked in Ontario, LCBO employees were considered "essential employees" and thus not allowed to strike. Teachers and policemen could strike, but not liquor employees. That pretty tells you how reliant the government is on booze sales.

I remember several years ago reading an article about a study done on "sin" taxes. At the time it was suggested that if for one week Canadians did not purchase any alcohol or tobacco products the country would go bankrupt. Our government relies on at least some of us having these vices.

[Sapio]

I feel for you people in Ontario. In BC we have private and government liquor stories and would never go to the government ones. No government monopoly.