One of the consequences of living in a free society is that sometimes people will choose to do things to themselves which are not especially healthy or safe. Our governments often lose sight of this by legislating how we should treat ourselves and thus deny us our basic autonomy as human beings.
Consuming alcohol is one of those things that is not especially good for you, but people who choose to drink do so, for the most part, not because they believe it will increase their longevity, but because they have decided the risks are acceptable.
With this in mind, Ontario needs to re-examine its restrictive drinking laws and evaluate which ones are truly effective in protecting society and which are purely the result of a nanny-state mentality, or the remnants of puritanical temperance-era values.
Obviously, different people’s liberties may come into conflict and thus it is necessary to restrict the freedom of individuals in order to have a functioning society. Legislation which limits personal freedoms can be justified if it is necessary to protect society or an individual from harm inflicted by another.
However, if harm is caused to an individual by himself, that is his prerogative. If we cannot have autonomy over our own minds and bodies, there is no way we can maintain even the illusion of a free society.
Preventing harm to others or to society, then, can be the criteria by which we judge our drinking laws.
We can start with drinking and driving. This is a prime example of how an individual’s right to autonomy of action is justifiably restricted. Driving drunk presents a danger to society, which is reasonable grounds for outlawing it.
Of course, penalties related to impaired driving should be i based on the driver’s blood alcohol level alone and not for all manner of irrelevant factors such as open alcohol containers in the car, or closed containers within reach of the driver or passengers.
However, at least the basic concept of criminalizing drunk driving is sound.
Most of Ontario’s drinking laws are not so sensible. They are archaic, pointless, inconvenient, and do not satisfy the criteria established above that they should protect others from harm.
For example, one might wonder what purpose it serves to fine otherwise well-behaved citizens $125 for having a beer while on a picnic in the park.
Who is the victim being protected by this law?
There are laws against public drunkenness, aggressive or lewd behaviour, under which anyone causing harm to others can be prosecuted. If none of these crimes are being committed, then the difference between drinking out of a Coke can or a can of Budweiser is purely aesthetic.
The government has no business weighing in on matters of taste, even if some might find the sight of alcohol being consumed offensive. This is not the concrete sort of harm which would be necessary to justify the curtailment of our liberty to consume what we choose, when we choose and where we choose.
There are no laws against public consumption of meat products, even though some vegetarians might be offended by the sight. Restrictions on what one may consume in public are to be expected in theocracies, such as Saudi Arabia, but are inconsistent with the secular values of a western democracy.
Provincially-mandated closing hours are another example of government interference which serves no purpose. Surely, as long as noise by-laws are respected, how long an establishment stays open should be nobody’s business but that of the proprietor. A free- market economy will cause bars to close when demand wanes.
The United Kingdom has had a variety of strange licensing laws with widely fluctuating closing times throughout its history. However, some pubs around major markets in London have been allowed to stay open 24 hours a day since Victorian times to serve shift workers.
We are increasingly living in a 24-hour society and late-night workers no doubt have just as strong a desire to share a pint with colleagues after work as does anyone else. The idea that we treat our labourers with less consideration than Victorian England treated hers should make any reader of Charles Dickens cringe.
As unjustified as any of these laws are, they pale in comparison to the government-mandated monopoly on retail.
The Beer Store, which is responsible for about 85 per cent of beer sold in Ontario, is owned by a major multi-national corporation. What’s next? Will the Ontario government give Walmart a monopoly on clothing sales?
This system not only robs small businesses of a valuable source of revenue, it forces people to walk, drive, or bus to centralized depots during limited hours of operation to purchase their beer. Most Ontarians who drink beer have at some point in their lives cursed the Beer Store.
We must ask ourselves: for whose profits we are being inconvenienced?
In any case, whether you drink or not, the Ontario government’s willingness to restrict our personal freedoms, with no solid ethical justification, should give you pause for sobering thought.