Quote:
Originally Posted by _Q_
I'm not sure if there is as much of a difference as you think.
|
Food consumption(which you need) vs recreational drug consumption(a choice) have very little in common IMO. Even if the drug is available in an edible form like beer. You eat food to live, you use recreational drugs for the resulting effect.
If the purpose of leaving the house is to get as drunk as possible, why is the person in your example even going to a hockey game? [/QUOTE]
The purpose of leaving the house is to go to the game, you don’t need a beer to go to the game. The purpose of drinking 6 beers within a couple of hours is mainly to feel the effects of the beer.
Quote:
|
I would also argue that there already are alternatives to spending $10 per beer at the Saddledome during the game. Why is this person currently not chugging $6 pints of beer at National before the game to save money?
|
Yes they already go to other venues, because it’s less expensive. They have options to avoid paying $10 now, and if they change the laws they’ll have options to avoid paying $6. Is it that unreasonable to assume some people will choose that option? The more convenient it is for people to avoid paying $10/beer the more likely it is they won’t be buying $10 beers. If you are entrenched in your position these changes won’t potentially have a negative impact some businesses then we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Quote:
|
And why is it that we care so much about liquor sales at one venue vs another? Is $50 spent at the Saddledome more beneficial to the economy than $30 spent at the bar next door or $12 spent at the liquor store? Maybe if people start to find alternatives, it will force certain prices down. Why is that a bad thing?
|
It’s not a bad thing for consumers, and I’m not opposed to it. Bars and event venues will oppose a change to the law because it can and likely will hurt their business while liquor store owners will support the change because it will benefit theirs. I’m not trying to debate the net economic impact.