
A generic beer that was too cheap for Saskatchewan - dmitryminkovsky
https://www.cbc.ca/archives/the-generic-beer-that-was-too-cheap-for-saskatchewan-1.5064323?cmp=rss
======
jrace
The state of liquor/beer sales in Canada is sad indeed. In BC I can drive 5
hrs to the US and buy beer that is made 5 minutes from my house for less than
half the cost.

That same brewery gives every employee free beer every week because that is
cheaper than giving employee discounts.

And now legal cannabis pricing is even worse.

~~~
StudentStuff
I had never heard of keeping your receipt with your beer until visiting a
liquor store in Alberta. Apparently its common to confiscate beer lacking a
receipt, as its assumed to be from another province? Seems very silly, but my
perspective is skewed as a Seattleite ($25 fine for drinking in public that is
rarely enforced).

~~~
tonyarkles
I have never heard of this either, but yeah... through a quirk in Canadian
law, only the crown is allowed to transport liquor between provinces, modulo
some exceptions for small quantities:
[https://constitutional.findlaw.ca/article/how-much-
alcohol-c...](https://constitutional.findlaw.ca/article/how-much-alcohol-can-
i-bring-from-another-province/)

I can't legally very much beer or wine back to Saskatchewan when I make a trip
to Alberta, even though it's significantly cheaper there.

Edit: I knew about the "no transport between provinces" thing, but I didn't
know about the receipt thing. I suspect that if you're in Alberta, with
Alberta plates, you're not going to have your beer confiscated. If you're in
Saskatchewan with Alberta plates, and have a trunk full of beer... they're
probably going to suspect you bought it all cheap at home and are bringing it
to friends.

~~~
ridgewell
>only the crown is allowed to transport liquor between provinces

Coincidentally, that restriction was just removed! The Minister for
Intergovernmental Affairs announced it today. [1]

However, provinces and territories can still legislate their own barriers. But
federally, the law no longer stands.

[1] [https://www.canada.ca/en/intergovernmental-
affairs/news/2019...](https://www.canada.ca/en/intergovernmental-
affairs/news/2019/04/canada-acts-to-eliminate-barriers-to-interprovincial-
trade-in-alcohol.html)

~~~
tonyarkles
Holy crap! I bet that’s why this article got dredged up. That’s really great.
Thanks for the heads up!

------
endorphone
Most provinces have a minimum price threshold (e.g.
[https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/100116/v2](https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/100116/v2)),
and then the tax is a major component of that retail price -- something like
47% for beer, as a so-called sin tax.

As an occasional consumer, Ontarian and Canadian, I don't mind. Alcohol has a
lot of societal costs.

~~~
quinndupont
Agreed. While I find minimum price thresholds and sin taxes personally
annoying, there's lots of good research associating ease of access and low
prices with alcoholism, which has high costs in terms of healthcare and
individual suffering.

~~~
pmalynin
I hate it. It just more of Canadian government paternalism, taking away
people’s agency: “you cannot be trusted to make the right decision, so we’ll
make the wrong decision more expensive to do.” The worst thing isn’t even the
paternalism, it’s the hypocrisy. “This tax is to protect you and everyone
around you” but in reality “oh yeah please don’t stop drinking because it’s
bringing in so much tax revenue.”

~~~
AaronFriel
Yes, that's what libertarian paternalism (see: Nudge by Thaler and Sunstein)
is meant to do. Legal and abundant alcohol imposes high negative externalities
on the rest of the population. Sin taxes reduce consumption because economic
incentives usually work.

It's when things are outright illegal (see: prohibition, narcotics) or the
cost of ignoring the law is _de facto_ lower than the legal price that things
become quite dangerous for consumers, like the sale of narcotics laced with
cheaper, more potent compounds like fentanyl.

For better and worse, a regulated market that pushes prices upward is usually
better than an unregulated market or a criminalized one.

~~~
noarchy
>libertarian paternalism

Just when you think you've seen everything; someone actually came up with this
term? Is this meant to try to convince libertarians as to the merits of
statism and regulation?

------
MegaDeKay
This largely came about because of the "no name" craze started by Loblaws that
was going on during this time [0]. Plain yellow packaged products with generic
naming and no pictures, priced low, and of reasonable quality. Because when
all you wanted was "Raisin Bran", why pay more? (Yeah, well, to get more
raisins, but that's beside the point). I had a lot of yellow groceries in my
apartment back in my starving student days.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Name_(brand)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Name_\(brand\))

~~~
darkpuma
That brand is disgustingly ironic.

~~~
gpvos
Better than ironically disgusting.

------
overkill28
How much did it cost??

