Jump to content

Talk:Liquor Control Board of Ontario

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments

[edit]

We don't know if privatization will reduce or increase prices. Therefore until otherwise we should use "could" and "would" when describing the effects on the market prices a possible privatization would cause. We do know though that privatization would increase locations, increase hours, and therefore increase convenience. That much is certain. How this would affect the market is to be determined.

How are increased hours any more certain than increased prices? By comparisson to other province of course. It also by comparisson with other provinces that we know prices will increase. "There are many reported price comparisons based on Alberta's still brief experience, but all, including some by Statistics Canada, show that alcohol prices have increased since privatization a year ago." [1] - SimonP 00:44, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)


Lets compare prices today. Go to www.okliquor.ca which is a liquor store chain in Calgary where I used to live. Then go to www.lcbo.com and compare prices. Guess what, its cheaper in Alberta. Sometimes much cheaper. As for the store hours increasing, I think it is safe to say in this age of 24 hour grocery stores, let alone 24 hour corner stores that the hours of sale would go up. After all why would a corner store or grocery store cut hours if they started selling liquor? Liquor Stores close at 9pm in Ontario for nanny state reasons, not business reasons.

I would just like to point out that there are some stores open past 9, including store 38 in Ottawa (King Edward and Rideau Streets) the second or third largest in the province. Also MOST retail outlets where LCBO stores are located close at 9 during the week, and earlier on the weekends, the LCBO is following what is "Standard" in their retail markets, and in most cases is open later than many surrounding outlets. Granted there are some stores in small markets which close at 6 or earlier than normal, however usually these stores are within a 5-10 minute drive of another store open later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.184.76 (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for lower prices, well Walmart has show us in Canada how prices can drop when you have innovative retail giants enter the marketplace. When large grocery stores entered the liquor retail market in Alberta prices dropped incredibly. In Quebec the large grocery retailers like Costco sell beer at much cheaper prices ($5-$10 less a case) than in Ontario even though the taxes are similar in Quebec and Ontario.

But all this is just talk. We will never find out for sure which is cheaper or has better hours, or has better locations unless the private sector competes with the LCBO.

Blatant Bias

[edit]

The page as it is now has an obvious anti-LCBO slant. I understand the pros and cons of the LCBO and but almost every paragraph in the article has a criticism attached to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cashcleaner (talk • contribs) 04:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous Users Changing Paragraphs

[edit]

Am I the only one who has noticed anonymous users changing paragraphs to push a certain POV? If this keeps up, we might have to lock up this article. rasblue 14:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

[edit]

Thank you SimonP and rasblue! It seems as though there is bias (on both sides of the debate) riddled throughout the entire article. This article is way to political and seems like it needs to be cleaned up. Systembolaget, Vinmonopolet, Alko and Vínbúð don't seem to have any political bias in their Wikipedia articles, despite the fact that they are state run agencies too.

Everyone has a certain bias, its only human. What I personally try to do is for each slant one way, I try to add a slant the other way. Like when pointing out the pros to privatization, we also added cons to privatization. rasblue 05:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about we keep the opinions of both pro and anti privatization on a privatization page and allow this page of the LCBO to be clean of politically motivated information. No bias, either way. No need to link to LCBO Union webpages OR TO webpages against the LCBO. It has no place on an information page, as it WILL lead to confusion of the topic. People can think for themselves and if they are interested in the topic, they can search for information of the issues in a more appropriate area. --AmadisOG 10:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares about the social/public responsibility of government liquor stores, I think people realise that with all state run enterprises.

The reason that is important is because that is officially the mandate of the LCBO. Its part of their mission and it is important. rasblue 05:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares who owns the Brewers Retail? Let people click on the link if they really want to know anything more about the Beer Store.

It is always important to highlight the ownership structure of corporations on Wikipedia is there is a strong ownership presence. For example, could you have an article on Microsoft without mentioning Bill Gates? The Brewers Retail ownership structure is highly unusual and after all this is an encyclopedia. rasblue 05:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares if New York state sells wine that is cheaper? If we want to demonstrate what prices are, then why not list actual prices and not worry what prices are like in other parts. People know what they prices are where they live, let other people post what the prices where they live in other articles.

All that I added here was a link. What others do with the info there I can't vouch for. But I do think it is important to mention that LCBO prices and Ontario taxes on liquor are some of the highest in the world. People care about info like that. Its important to highlight why the prices are so high (social responsibility and lack of competition). There are other products listed on Wikipedia that treat that sort of info similarily. rasblue 05:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares about Alberta, people can go to liquor store and look up Alberta there.

It's just a comparison. Yes, we need to find a way to encorporate that type of info more smoothly. I think that Alberta is only used is because every few years for the last half century privatization comes up for the LCBO and Alberta is always used as an example of what can go right/wrong. rasblue 05:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares about union/non union stores. I think people already know that smaller (stores) Mom and Pop operations aren't unionised.

Not all the agency stores are non-unionized. Most grocery chains in North America are unionized (Walmart being a huge exception) and that includes the smaller outlets of large chains in small towns. But that is besides the point. Public sector unions are hugely influential in Ontario. It can be said that they "have a seat at the table" in regards to the LCBO. They also bargain hard and are unafraid to threaten strikes. Not a judgement, just a fact. I think the union/LCBO relations deserve a few lines in the article. After all, could you imagine an article on General Motors, Delphi, or Ford without mentioning the UAW or CAW? rasblue
05:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

is sobey's unionized? --64.228.134.106 18:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC) Simcoe 20:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, many of Sobey's stores are unionized and more are becoming unionized all the time. rasblue 19:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Impartiality WRT Alberta comparison

[edit]

I think that some hard statistics are warranted with the constant comparison of liquor prices in Ontario and Alberta. With both at the opposite end of the political spectrum (crown corporation vs. privatization) it is worth knowing whether social responsibility is paying off for the LCBO. Is alcoholism and/or DUI on the rise in Alberta? Not a jab, a serious query. I think making references to Ontario being a "nanny state" because of store hours and controlled access (ie, that liquor is not sold in every corner store or grocery store) is somewhat biased and naive. As it stands, bars must adhere to a strict closing time in Ontario. Does this mean that bar patrons should be able to continue their consumption of alcohol after 2am? And what of all of the liquor taxes? How about a comparison of which "system" pours more money in the health care system and social responsibility programs. While you're at it, you might want to add other places where liquor is even more expensive than Ontario, Quebec being a notable example.

With regard to store hours, especially the notion of 24hr liquor stores, the sort of people who make these statements are themselves rarely willing to work night shifts. While there are a lot of fields with 24hr shift coverage, in retail this is generally limited to the necessaries of life. Convenience stores and the odd grocery store represent this degree of necessity. Is the implication that liquor is a necessity? If so, I do believe that alcoholism is a serious risk. From my own experience I can tell you that the degree to which people get upset at a liquor store closing is only indicative of their own obsession with acquiring liquor, something which they could have done at a decent hour. I certainly don't complain when I go to the mall at 9:05pm and find that I'm locked out. I'm getting a bit off topic, but I think that this touches on a broader picture of constant service at society's expense for a needy few.

Finnulf 09:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linking bias information

[edit]

There seems to be a website, [[2]] that is being linked to on the bottom of the LCBO article. After reading the information on this site, it is clear that they do not actually share any real information as to why they believe the LCBO should be made private. They list some standard facts about the LCBO and some generalizations that are not in any way proven, such as the amount of money the government could make from a private deal.

It is important that the article does not become a basis of opinion but rather an information page that represents the factual meaning of what is going on. The spreading of personal opinion without the supporting information should not be included in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AmadisOG (talk contribs) -AmadisOG (Jan 9, 2007 12:14am

LCBO Deposit/Return Information

[edit]

For various reasons I am unwilling to edit the actual article itself. I would like to point out that more information could be added (and existing information corrected) regarding the LCBO's deposit and return program. The relevant information can be found at bagitback.ca [[3]]. The specifics for deposit/return are explained on the Eligibe Items and Return Rates page [[4]]. The program itself was announced in December 2006 but did not start until 5 February 2007.

The fact that The Beer Store is handling the returns is an issue for an unspecified number of LCBO customers. Perhaps information could be added to the article about the nature of this relationship, possibly touching on the public nature of the LCBO and the private nature of TBS.

Finnulf 02:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Purchaser/Hard Liquor

[edit]

LCBO is not virtually the only place to buy hard liquor it is...U -brews, U vints, winery retail stores and Brewers retail are the only places allowed to distribute alcohol and only the LCBO can sell hard liquor.

Also, they are the single largest purchaser of beverage alcohol in the world, not the second largest. Who would be the biggest anyways?

(http://whitepapers.techrepublic.com.com/casestudy.aspx?docid=326260) (http://www.calj.org/cms/anmviewer.asp?a=45&print=yes) (http://www.magazinescanada.com/files/submissiondraft_lcbo_reviw_panelmarch_3_2005doc.pdf)

All of those confirm that claim. I'm not the most proficient at wikipedia, and quite frankly, i have no idea how to do anything but make changes, which means i don't know how to endnote this. In addition, reading any publicly availible LCBO literature such as the LCBO Today will show only they can distribute hard alcohol. That is why they can use floor pricing. If they had competition, there's no way they could. ;p


99.225.148.96 (talk) 04:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, which does use LCBO videos in their store clerk training programs, is a strong contender for the single largest purchaser of alcoholic beverages in the world. They make about $2 billion USD in sales annually. I also think they should be listed in the "See also" section. Bill S. (talk) 11:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo - LCBO.gif

[edit]

Image:Logo - LCBO.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Off-Sales

[edit]

The article stated that Ontario is the only jurisdiction in N. America which disallows so-called "off-sales." This is pretty obviously not the case, since "off-sale" in its most general sense refers to liquor being sold for consumption off-premises, which is the whole point of the LCBO's many storefront operations. On the other hand, if by "off-sales" we are talking about the practice of bars selling closed-container drinks for consumption off-premises, then the passage is still incorrect, because this is in fact illegal in most N. American jurisdictions (e.g., Virginia, where I'm writing from, and Quebec, where I lived for 12 years; the fact that many establishments that I can think of in both places actually do this does not change the fact that it's illegal). Finally, the term "off-sale" does not have anything to do with where bars and restaurants are legally allowed to purchase the alcohol they sell on (or, where legal, off) premises, and therefore even the contextual placement of the sentence in question didn't make sense. Buck Mulligan (talk) 03:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bias/Lack of Citations

[edit]

I removed and/or edited some parts that did not have citations or that took on a pro privatization tone. Still more is required however.Mbr1983 (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Impending 2009 strike and danger of vandalism

[edit]

Given the impending strike that may or may not occur this week (0001hrs EST 24 June 2009) this article could end up becoming a target for vandalism from either the employer, the union, or the public. I'm certainly not active enough in Wikipedia to decide that this means the article should be locked, but I would recommend that regulars may want to monitor this article for vandalism in the near future. Finnulf (talk) 06:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism seems to be increasing. The profit level was vandalized today by 99.235.176.172. A partial lock would be a good idea. I've requested one. Robertbyrne (talk) 01:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

future section removed

[edit]

Encyclopedia articles should not contain speculation or here say about what may or may not happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.40.219 (talk) 02:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


also did not contain proper references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.40.219 (talk) 02:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

[edit]

I am proposing that LCBO Agency be merged here. I just don't think it requires a standalone article, for a type of outlet. Your thoughts? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I'd say, go ahead and do it. Let me know if you need help with deletions, history merge, etc. Owen× ☎ 21:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it will not be merged, the article is incomplete

[edit]
I don't see what your disability has to do with anything, but it certainly doesn't give you a veto right on a collaborative project. If the article is incomplete, any additional content can be added to the main article here after the merge is done. I'll start the Articles for Deletion process on the forked page, and let the editorial community make the choice. Owen× ☎ 19:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Liquor Control Board of Ontario. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liquor Control Board of Ontario. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liquor_Control_Board_of_Ontario&oldid=1246898867"