Hey there, time traveller!

This article was published 20/12/2015 (1740 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Opinion

Lynne Fernandez's column (More at stake than cold beer, Dec. 11) focuses on the "societal harm" privatizing liquor sales would bring and the ability of the monopoly to give back to anti-alcohol and treatment programs.

What other businesses are expected to return money where harm is done? Do we expect or require fast-food chains to contribute to our hospitals or build playgrounds and parks to help with the obesity they cause? Are car manufacturers required to contribute money to the thousands of injuries caused by their products every year? Do television broadcasters have to provide money to the government to cover the cost of poor health caused by watching too much TV?

JOHN WOODS / WINNIPEG FREE PRESS FILES Expecting vendors of alcohol to compensate for societal harm is akin to expecting fast-food chains to help remedy obesity.

The answer to all of these questions is an obvious no.

The column also states monopolies are better at enforcing ID requirements for purchases. I don't recall any of my friends having trouble getting alcohol when we were under 18, so whether 77.5 per cent or 18 per cent of customers are asked for ID -- numbers Fernandez cited in comparing government-run and private liquor stores -- is specious. The percentage that matters is how many underage customers are able to successfully purchase alcohol. I have seen 30-year-old men with full beards carded at Manitoba stores. That doesn't mean they're doing a great job preventing alcohol from getting into the hands of youth, it means they have a high percentage of asking for identification.

Another red herring is Fernandez' claim Manitobans are satisfied with Liquor Marts. Satisfaction surveys by people who have not experienced other markets are baseless. That 93 per cent of customers in Brandon and Winnipeg and 91 per cent of rural customers are "satisfied" is a false statistic if it's not a comparison with having shopped in a free and open liquor market.

Also, if the survey was conducted using a scale of one to five, does the near-unanimity include people who were marginally satisfied? It's just not clear.

When I talked to one cocktail bartender in Winnipeg, he said that in a response to a Manitoba Liquor and Lotteries survey, he gave them a perfect score. When the survey taker suggested, "You must think we're perfect?" the bartender replied: "You're the only one I can buy from, so what difference does it make that it's difficult to obtain what I need or comment on the pricing?"

Here's what I know: having travelled widely in Canada, the United States and around the world, Manitoba certainly does not compete on alcohol pricing or selection -- a point the CEO of MLL recently ceded (Liquor boss vows cheaper tipples, Dec. 5). A comparison with other jurisdictions shows spirits are considerably more expensive here; however, selection over price is more important when it comes to boutique spirits.

It is true Liquor Marts have started to carry a more diverse stock; however, the refusal to launch private stores or to accept not every product must be carried at every store results in a "one in, one out" type of system. In order to carry a new gin or whisky, another gin must be removed, thus the size of the selection remains the same. Decisions on delisting are made on the basis of sales, not on having a wide selection available. This makes some sense in determining whether to carry a product at all stores, but not when you are a monopoly. Certain items are not able to be substituted.

The lack of a discount for volume purchasers such as restaurants and bars defies logic. MLL crows about its purchasing power -- especially as it often piggybacks onto the Liquor Control Board of Ontario -- to create a massive partnership that negotiates lower prices. These low prices are not passed on to consumers or small businesses. Neighbourhood bars have been closing across North America because they are unable to earn enough money to stay open. A "local" serves as a community gathering place, and having a place within walking distance where one can have a drink and watch the game or a local musician reduces drinking and driving, unlike cramming all serving establishments into one area.

The introduction of a growler service is touted by MLL as a progressive move. However, these jugs of beer have been in vogue in other provinces, and especially the U.S., for years. It is hardly an example of nimbleness, but instead demonstrates MLL's ability to belatedly follow trends.

Employees at Manitoba Liquor Marts are no more knowledgeable about products than those at any other liquor store I have been to across Canada. When I have travelled to Minneapolis, the staff members at my preferred liquor store have far superior knowledge.

In Manitoba, a query about a product invariably leads to suggestions for substitutions. These suggestions are not generally helpful. At small liquor stores in Minnesota, there is often a tasting area, where rather than a brand ambassador offering a sample of Apothic Red wine, the staff provides a sample and an explanation of the product and whether they recommend it.

Alcohol is a normal commodity. It is only puritan-style beliefs that lead some to think it should be treated as a special category. Most nations in the world are able to handle private liquor sales without descending into chaos.

Jeff Parker is a former lawyer and liquor aficionado who lives in Winnipeg.