Later in the trip we were at a Napa Valley winery. During our winery tour, the guide mentioned that if we filled out an order form we could have a case of wine delivered to home or office. Then she stopped, looked at my friend and me, and said, “Oh wait, not to Ontario. You guys are worse than Utah.” She proceeded to list all the countries they ship to, two of which have majority Muslim populations. But Ontario was too much trouble, so they gave up trying. We could buy the wine and bring it over the border ourselves, but if it were to be shipped across the border it would clearly be illegal.
Our restrictive, puritanical, liquor laws are not just limited to restricting products or preventing private stores from selling alcohol. On our trip it became a running joke to point out things that were banned in Ontario. Happy hour is illegal in Ontario. I pointed to a seasonal winter beer in at a convenience store with a cartoon picture of Santa Claus on the label and noted it would be banned in Ontario. There is cheap beer across the U.S. because of intense competition, but Ontario has a price floor of $1.07 per bottle.
So I pose the question that I was asked in the bar in San Francisco. Why are we so puritanical when it comes to alcohol?
Hugh MacIntyre, “Ontario’s liberalism dies at the brewery door”, National Post, 2010-12-08
December 9, 2010
QotD: Ontario’s “restrictive, puritanical, liquor laws”
4 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
My guess is that it has something to do with the genetic makeup of the original European population in Ontario. There is something about that population that just does not react well with alcohol. Keswick has a lot of old stock Ontario families, and when they get drunk, the results are just nasty — and I mean vicious, mean, ugly nasty. These people really do transform when they get plastered, becoming extraordinarily aggressive and violent. I see this happen with such regularity and find it so predictable if one has a rough idea of an individual’s background, that I really do think there is a genetic component.
I suspect that this trait was noticed long ago, and resulted in Ontario’s current regulations and attitude towards alcohol. Perhaps there once was a time when most of the population really could not hold its liquor, so in an effort that we would now classify as “harm reduction”, the province regulated the stuff.
Seems to me to be just as likely an explanation as crusading morality.
Comment by Lickmuffin — December 9, 2010 @ 18:11
Holy shit. I just re-read my comment, and… wow.
Eugenics! It’s not just for whack-jobs anymore!
That, or I have been spending far too much time in Keswick.
Comment by Lickmuffin — December 9, 2010 @ 21:13
Getting dangerously close to biological determinism, there.
If Keswick and environs is typical of the kind of drinking pattern that held across Ontario before Prohibition, it might provide a bit of backing to the current alcohol rules and regulations. Although I sometimes feel quite old, I’m not old enough to remember that far back.
Comment by Nicholas — December 10, 2010 @ 10:04
Note that I am not suggesting that biology is making these people drink, or making them more likely to consume alcohol, or making them more likely to become addicted — so I don’t think I am heading towards biological determinism here. But I do think it is possible that biology may affect how individuals within a population react to overconsumption of alcohol. The biology of metabolism and brain chemistry might determine if you are more likely to become a playful drunk or an angry and aggressive drunk.
If a population was predisposed towards angry drunkenness, and the predisposed population was large enough or widespread enough that angry drunkenness was the most common observation of drunkenness, then I could see a government enacting very restrictive laws about the sale and consumption of alcohol.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to measure the bumps on my head.
Comment by Lickmuffin — December 10, 2010 @ 11:48