Transcript: Lessons from Post-Prohibition | May 15, 2019

Steve sits in the studio. He's slim, clean-shaven, in his fifties, with short curly brown hair. He's wearing a gray suit, blue shirt, and spotted brown tie.

A caption on screen reads "Lessons from post-prohibition Ontario."

Steve says WE'RE A LONG WAY TODAY
FROM THE PROHIBITION ERA, IN
YEARS AND IN POLICY.
WHERE TEMPERANCE WAS THE CAUSE
OF THE DAY BACK THEN, NOW
LIBERALIZATION IS THE MANTRA.
DAN MALLECK IS AN ASSOCIATE
PROFESSOR IN HEALTH SCIENCES AT
BROCK UNIVERSITY IN ST.
CATHARINES, AND HIS BOOK, "TRY
TO CONTROL YOURSELF: THE
REGULATION OF PUBLIC DRINKING IN
POST-PROHIBITION ONTARIO,"
SURVEYS THAT CHANGE.
AND DAN MALLECK JOINS US NOW.

Dan is in his late fifties, clean-shaven, with receding gray hair. He's wearing glasses, a gray suit and a blue shirt.
A picture of his book appears briefly on screen. The cover features a close-up picture of a yellowish bubbly beverage.

Steve continues NICE TO HAVE YOU HERE.

Dan says NICE TO BE HERE.

Steve says WHAT DID ONTARIO'S
SYSTEM LOOK LIKE BEFORE
PROHIBITION, WHICH IS GOING BACK
HOW MANY YEARS NOW, ALMOST A
HUNDRED YEARS.

The caption changes to "Dan Malleck. Author, 'Try to control yourself.'"
Then, it changes again to "A dry province."

Dan says YEAH, PROHIBITION STARTED IN
1916.
BEFORE THAT IT WAS A GRADUAL
TIGHTENING UP OF THE LAWS.
SO IF YOU GO BACK TO, SAY, THE
1860S, A LOT OF PEOPLE COMPLAIN
THAT IT WAS WIDE-OPEN DRINKING,
A LOT OF DRUNKENNESS, ESPECIALLY
IN SMALLER TOWNS.

Steve says IN THE STREETS?

Dan says YEAH, THAT WAS THE IMAGE.
OFTEN... IN SOME COMMUNITIES THE
MUNICIPALITIES WOULD ISSUE MORE
LICENSES THAN PROBABLY THEY
NEEDED BECAUSE IT WAS REVENUE
SOURCE AND BECAUSE THE TAVERNS
WERE A POLITICALLY POWERFUL
PLACE, RIGHT?
THE PUBLICAN, THE TAVERN OWNER
HAD A LOT OF PLAY OVER HIS
PATRONS.
SO LOCAL POLITICIANS WOULD KIND
OF CATER TO THEM, RIGHT?
SO THERE'S A LOT OF CONCERN
ABOUT PUBLIC DRUNKENNESS, TOO
MANY LICENSES.
WHEN YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR A
LICENCE AND THERE'S A LOT OF
COMPETITION, YOU HAVE TO DROP
THE PRICES, SO IT WAS CHEAP
BOOZE AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
BUT THEN OVER THE NEXT 30 TO 40
YEARS, THE GOVERNMENT OF OLIVER
MOATE, THE LIBERAL GOVERNMENT AT
THE TIME, THE LIBERALS WERE IN
POWER FOR 32 YEARS, GRADUALLY
SORT OF INCREASED THE
RESTRICTIONS.

Steve says TOWARDS THE END OF THE
1800S.

The caption changes to "Dan Malleck. Brock University."

Dan says AND INTO THE... YEAH, AND
THIS WAS IN RESPONSE TO A
TEMPERANCE MOVEMENT THAT WANTED
PROHIBITION AND A LIQUOR
INDUSTRY THAT OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T,
BUT ALSO A LOT OF SORT OF LOCAL
I WOULD SAY EXPERIMENTS WHERE
THEY FOUND THAT A LOCAL
PROHIBITION LAW JUST WASN'T
WORKING BECAUSE PEOPLE STILL
WANTED IT.
BUT BY THE EARLY 20TH CENTURY,
THE... PROHIBITION SEEMED A
LITTLE MORE APPEALING.
THEY HAD CRANKED UP THE LICENSE
TO SUCH A... THE COST OF A
LICENCE TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT
THERE WERE FEWER PLACES TO
DRINK, AND THE WAR BROUGHT ON A
NEW IMPERATIVE TO ACTUALLY STOP
DRINKING ALL TOGETHER.

Steve says FIRST WORLD WAR.

Dan says YEAH, THE FIRST WORLD WAR,
AND THAT WAS PARTLY ON A
RESOURCE ALLOCATION ISSUE,
PARTLY ON A HUMAN RESOURCE
ALLOCATION ISSUE, RIGHT?
IT GOT PEOPLE DRINKING INSTEAD
OF WORKING.
AND SO ACROSS THE COUNTRY,
ACTUALLY, IN MOST PROVINCES
PROHIBITION WAS ENACTED DURING
THE WAR.
THERE ARE A FEW PROVINCES THAT
HAD IT BEFORE, BUT DURING THE
WAR WAS WHEN IT HAPPENED.

Steve says IN ONTARIO IT HAPPENED
DURING THE WAR, AND WAS IT
PREMIER HERSELF WHO BROUGHT IT
IN?

Dan says YEAH, IT WAS HEARST.

Dan says AND AFTER HE BRINGS IN
PROHIBITION, DO PEOPLE'S
DRINKING ACTIONS ACTUALLY CHANGE
BECAUSE THEY CAN'T BUY BOOZE IN
PUBLIC ANYMORE?

The caption changes to "Dan Malleck, @DanMalleck."

Dan says YES, THEY CHANGE.
WE SEE THAT ACROSS THE BOARD.
BUT ALSO THEIR HABITS ON THE
AMOUNT OF ILLEGALITY INCREASES,
RIGHT? BECAUSE PEOPLE STILL
WANTED IT. THERE WAS NEVER A
TIME WHEN A MAJORITY OF ADULTS
VOTED AGAINST... OR DIDN'T
WANT PROHIBITION... THERE WAS
NEVER A TIME WHEN THE MAJORITY
WANTED PROHIBITION. AND THAT'S
A PROBLEM WITH ENFORCEMENT.
IF YOU HAVE, SAY, EVEN 50 percent PLUS
ONE VOTE FOR PROHIBITION, AND WE
DIDN'T HAVE A VOTE FOR
PROHIBITION IN 1916.
IT WAS JUST A LAW THAT WAS
PASSED.
BUT A 50 percent 1 VOTE FOR
PROHIBITION, THAT MEANS 49 percent
DON'T WANT IT, RIGHT, SO YOU'RE
GOING TO SEE ILLEGAL BEHAVIOUR.
ILLEGAL BEHAVIOUR BEING
BEHAVIOUR THAT NORMALLY WOULD BE
LEGAL, RIGHT?
SO PEOPLE HAD A PROBLEM WITH
THAT, AND WE HEAR ABOUT THE
STORIES IN THE U.S. OF THE SPEAK
EASIES AND RUM RUNNERS AND THAT.
AND CANADA WAS PART OF THAT.

Steve says WE SHOULD JUST TAKE A
PAUSE.
WE HAVE A LOT OF NEW CANADIANS
WHO WATCH THIS SHOW, AND AN
EXPRESSION SPEAK EASY IS
SOMETHING THEY MAY NOT KNOW WHAT
IT IS.

The caption changes to "Connect with us: Twitter: @theagenda; Facebook, agendaconnect@tvo.org, Instagram."

Dan says SURE, A SPEAK EASY, WE SEE
THESE IN SORT OF HOLLYWOOD
MOVIES, A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE
COULD GO AND DRINK.
IT WAS ILLEGAL.
SOMETIMES YOU HAD TO HAVE A
PASSWORD AT THE DOOR.
ALL OF THESE IMAGES WE GET FROM
HOLLYWOOD EXISTED IN SOME OF THE
BIGGER CITIES.
OFTEN WHAT WE WOULD SEE... AND
THEN THE IMAGE OF THEM IS, LIKE,
A REAL PARTY PLACE.
LOTS OF JAZZ MUSIC, LOTS OF KIND
OF MAYBE SEXUALLY LIBERAL
BEHAVIOUR, A LOT OF DRINKING.
THAT'S THE STEREOTYPE OF THE
SPEAK EASY.
AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT DID
EXIST IN JURISDICTIONS WHERE THE
POLICING WAS A LITTLE LAX
BECAUSE A LOT OF THE COPS WANTED
TO DRINK TOO, SO THEY DIDN'T
REALLY SEE A POINT IN
PROHIBITION.
IT WAS HARD TO ENFORCE FOR THAT
REASON.
BUT ALSO, CANADIAN AND ONTARIO
BUSINESSES WERE ALSO INVOLVED IN
SMUGGLING BECAUSE EVEN DURING
PROHIBITION, EXCEPT DURING THE
WAR, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
CRACKED DOWN ON DISTILLING, BUT
THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS, THAT
WAS NOT WITHIN THEIR PURVIEW.
SO THE... BECAUSE OF THE WAY OUR
CONSTITUTION IS LAID OUT, RIGHT?
SO TRADE AND COMMERCE IS A
FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY.
SO DURING THE WAR, THEY COULD
RESTRICT DISTILLING TO
SCIENTIFIC, MEDICINAL AND
ACTUALLY BOOZE IS USED IN SOME
ARMAMENTS.
AND THEN AFTER THE WAR,
DISTILLING WAS STILL LEGAL.
SO DISTILLERIES WERE CRANKING IT
OUT AND SELLING IT SOMEWHERE
ELSE.

Steve says I LOVE THE MEDICINAL
ANGLE HERE.
YOU REMEMBER FORMER PREMIER BILL
DAVIS?
TO THIS DAY HE REFERS TO ALCOHOL
AS ANTIBIOTICS.
HIS MOTHER WAS VERY
PRO-TEMPERANCE, AND IF THEY
CALLED IT ANTIBIOTICS THEY WOULD
BE ALLOWED TO HAVE IT IN THE
HOUSEHOLD.
I THINK THAT ATTITUDE WAS
PREVALENT BACK THEN, RIGHT?
IT WAS A CERTAIN GENERATION.

Dan says IT WAS PREVALENT BECAUSE
ALCOHOL WAS USED IN MEDICINE AND
WAS MEDICINE ITSELF.
IT WAS SEEN AS A... IT WOULD
USE... IT WOULD BE USED IN TONIC
PURPOSES, AND IT WAS ALSO A LOT
OF MEDICINES... A LOT OF DRUGS
WERE NOT... BEFORE WE HAD A LOT
OF PILLS, A LOT OF DRUGS WERE
NOT SOLUBLE IN WATER, SO YOU
WOULD GET A POWDER AND THIS IS
WHERE THE TERM TAKE A POWDER
CAME FROM.
YOU'D GET A POWDER AND YOU'D
HAVE TO DISSOLVE IT IN
SOMETHING.
IT'S CALLED A TINCTURE, AND YOU
TAKE IT.
OPIUM TINCTURES WERE POPULAR.
AND THEY ALSO WERE VERY
EFFECTIVE IN WHAT THEY DID.
BUT ALCOHOL ITSELF WAS ALSO
USED.

Steve says NOW WHAT WAS THIS
BUSINESS ABOUT THE LOCAL OPTION?
WHAT DID THIS REFER TO?

The caption changes to "Turning on the taps."

Dan says YEAH, SO LOCAL OPTION WAS
THIS IDEA... AND I MENTIONED
THOSE EXPERIMENTS EARLIER.
LOCAL OPTION WAS WE HAD LOCAL
OPTION LAWS SINCE BEFORE
CONFEDERATION, AND LOCAL OPTION
MEANT AN INDIVIDUAL COMMUNITY
COULD VOTE ITSELF DRY.
IN OTHER WORDS, YOU COULDN'T
SELL OR OBVIOUSLY BUY... WELL,
NO, YOU COULDN'T SELL IN THAT
COMMUNITY.
AND SO BACK IN THE 18... AND
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WAS TRIED
ACROSS... AROUND THE WORLD IN
DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS.
BUT BACK IN THE 1860S, WE HAD A
LAW THAT ALLOWED DISCRETE
MUNICIPALITIES, TOWNSHIPS,
TOWNS, ALL THE WAY UP TO CITIES
AND COUNTIES, VOTE THEMSELVES
DRY.
AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, IF THE TOWN
NEXT TO YOU IS NOT DRY, IT
REALLY WASN'T ALL THAT
EFFECTIVE.
I MEAN, I WAS RAISED IN THE TOWN
THAT WAS ACTUALLY DRY UNTIL...

Steve says WHICH ONE?

Dan says IT'S A LITTLE TOWN OUTSIDE OF
LONDON CALLED THORNDALE, AND IT
WAS DRY UNTIL 1984.

Steve says WE HAD THAT IN THE
WEST END OF TORONTO.

Dan says YES, AND IN THORNDALE WE JUST
DIDN'T REALLY THINK ABOUT IT
BECAUSE YOU GO TO LONDON, AND IT
WASN'T DRINKING AT THE TIME
ANYWAY.
I WAS 16 WHEN IT CHANGED.

Steve says YEAH, SURE YOU WEREN'T
DRINKING.
I'M SURE.

Dan says OKAY, ANYWAYS, THAT'S A WHOLE
DIFFERENT...
BUT WHEN IT CAME... WHEN THEY
VOTED TO CHANGE IT, IT WAS JUST
SORT OF A WHY IS THIS LAW
HAPPENING, RIGHT?
BUT THOSE THINGS EXISTED IN
SMALL... THOSE THINGS.
THOSE SYSTEMS EXISTED, BUT THEY
WERE NOT VERY EFFECTIVE.
AND THEN WE HAD A FEDERAL LAW
CALLED THE CANADA TEMPERANCE ACT
FROM 1878 THAT MADE IT COUNTY OR
CITY-BASED.
AND THAT WAS ALSO NOT EFFECTIVE.
THERE WAS A... AT ONE POINT
THERE WAS OVER 25 percent OF THE
COUNTIES IN ONTARIO WERE DRY BUT
WITHIN ABOUT FOUR YEARS THEY ALL
VOTED THEMSELVES... THEY ALL
ENDED IT, BECAUSE IT JUST WASN'T
EFFECTIVE AND THEY WERE FINDING
THAT PEOPLE WERE ACTUALLY
BREAKING THE LAW MORE,
OBVIOUSLY, BUT ALSO JUST... IT
JUST WASN'T DOING THE JOB.

Steve says IT WAS A BIG DEAL IN
TORONTO IN THE WEST END.
IN THE 1940S, THE PREMIER LOST
HIS SEAT.
PREMIER DREW IN THE WEST END OF
TORONTO.
HE WAS DEFEATED BY AN ANTI-BOOZE
CRUSADER NAMED BILL TEMPLE.

Dan says AND TORONTO, I DON'T KNOW IF
IT STILL IS A HOT BED OF
TEMPERANCE, SO WHEN THE LCBO
CAME IN...

Steve says WHICH WAS WHEN?

Dan says 1927 AFTER PROHIBITION ENDED.
EACH COMMUNITY WAS DIFFERENT,
BUT THEY REALLY WERE STEPPING
ON, LIKE, THEY HAD TO STEP VERY
CAREFULLY AROUND TORONTO.

Steve says AND WHAT WAS THE
LCBO'S MANDATE AT THE TIME WHEN
IT WAS CREATED?

Dan says IT WAS THIS IDEA CALLED
DISINTERESTED MANAGEMENT, AND SO
THIS IS SOMETHING WHEN
GOVERNMENTS HAD TRIED TO
RESTRICT ALCOHOL UP UNTIL... UP
UNTIL PROHIBITION BY PUTTING
RESTRICTIONS ON THE MARKET, BUT
STILL ALLOWING IT TO BE WITHIN
THE OPEN MARKET, RIGHT?
SO BASICALLY MARKET-BASED
CONTROLS, HIGHER LICENSE FEES,
TAXES, THINGS LIKE THAT, REDUCED
NUMBERS OF LICENSES.
BUT PEOPLE STARTED TO SAY, YOU
KNOW, THIS SUBSTANCE IS ITSELF
SUCH A PROBLEM SOCIALLY THAT
MAYBE WE NEED TO GET IT OUT OF
THE MARKET, SO WE CREATE
SOMETHING CALLED DISINTERESTED
MANAGEMENT.

Steve says I DON'T GET THIS.
ON THE ONE HAND THE LCBO TAKES
ALL THE SPIRITS AND LIQUORS AND
WINES AND SO ON AND SAYS THE
GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR SELLING THEM,
BUT THE BREWERS RETAIL, WHICH
TODAY WE CALL THE BEER STORE,
THEY ALLOWED THE BREWERS, THE
PRIVATE INTERESTS, TO BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR RETAILING THAT.

Dan says YES.

Steve says HOW DOES THAT MAKE
SENSE?

Dan says IT MADE SENSE BECAUSE SPIRITS
WERE CONSIDERED MUCH MORE
DANGEROUS THAN BEER.
A LOT OF PEOPLE ARGUED THAT BEER
AND LIGHT WINE WERE TEMPERANCE
DRINKS, SO-CALLED TEMPERANCE
DRINKS, BECAUSE THEY WERE
MODERATION.
AND TEMPERANCE ORIGINALLY WAS
TEMPERING YOUR BEHAVIOUR, NOT
NOT DRINKING.
A LOT OF THE PROHIBITIONISTS
DIDN'T AGREE WITH THAT.
AND IT ALSO CAME DOWN TO THE
BREWERIES HAVING A LOT OF POWER,
RIGHT?
SO EVEN BEFORE PROHIBITION WE
HAD A WAREHOUSING SYSTEM BECAUSE
BEER WAS BULKY, AND SO YOU
COULDN'T JUST PUT IT IN A STORE
IN THE MIDDLE OF TOWN.
THE BREWERIES... I DON'T KNOW IF
THE BREWERIES BEFORE PROHIBITION
WORKED TOGETHER ON THIS, BUT
WHEN PROHIBITION ENDED, THE
BREWERIES WERE ALLOWED TO CREATE
THEIR CO-OP CALLED THE BREWERS
RETAIL SYSTEM, BUT THEY WERE
STILL INSPECTED.
THERE WAS STILL A GOVERNMENT
INSPECTOR ON SITE.
THERE WAS THAT KIND OF
OVERSIGHT.
YOU'RE RIGHT.
THAT WASN'T DISINTERESTED.
DISINTERESTED MANAGEMENT IS THE
IDEA THAT PROFIT IS NOT THE
MOTIVE FOR THE PERSON SELLING
IT.
SO IF YOU RUN A STORE AND YOU
PROFIT OFF LIQUOR AND YOU TAKE
THAT PROFIT AND BUY A NEW HOUSE
OR CAR, THAT'S INTERESTED
MANAGEMENT, RIGHT?
SO THE IDEA WAS THAT THE
MANAGER'S JOB WAS TO CONTROL
ACCESS TO IT, AND THEY WERE
REWARDED BY THE WAY THEY... YOU
KNOW, IF THEY WOULD FLAG PEOPLE
AS PROBLEMATIC, MAYBE HEAVY
DRINKERS, IF FAMILIES WOULD
WRITE IN OR SPEAK TO THE MANAGER
AND SAY PLEASE DON'T SELL MY SON
OR MY HUSBAND.
USUALLY IT WAS A MAN, A SON OR
HUSBAND BOOZE, THEY WERE
REWARDED FOR THAT KIND OF
CONTROLLING BEHAVIOUR.

Steve says SO WHAT'S INTERESTING
IS THAT SYSTEM, WHICH IS ALMOST
100 YEARS OLD THAT YOU'VE
DESCRIBED, IT'S KIND OF A
TEMPLATE FOR WHERE WE ARE TODAY
STILL, IS IT NOT?

The caption changes to "Finding a balance."

Dan says WELL, IT IS IN THE SENSE THAT
WE HAVE THE PROVINCE RUNS THE
SALES.
THERE'S ONE... GLASS IN EVERY
STORE THAT MAYBE THEY ARE
WATCHING US, I DON'T KNOW.
BUT THE DIFFERENCE NOW IS THE
WAY IT HAS TRANSFORMED INTO MUCH
MORE OF A RETAIL-BASED... LIKE,
INTERESTED IN SALES, NOT IN
PROFITING FROM SALES.

Steve says THEY ARE NOT A
DISINTERESTED SELLER ANYMORE.

Dan says THEY ARE NOT...

Steve says VERY INTERESTED IN
MAKING 2.5 BILLION dollars A YEAR OFF IT.

Dan says YES, AND THAT'S THE... THAT'S
WHERE IT GETS INTO INTERESTING
POLITICS TODAY WHERE IT'S
PROFITABLE, BUT THE PROFIT GOES
DIRECTLY TO THE PROVINCE, AND SO
YOU ASSUME THAT THE PROVINCE...
A GOVERNMENT ELECTED BY THE
PEOPLE THEN IT WOULD BE
RESPONSIBLE TO THE PEOPLE AS
OPPOSED TO JUST PRIVATE
INTERESTS.
AND THIS IS WHERE WE GOT INTO
THESE ISSUES AROUND THE BEER
STORE AND THE LCBO BACK IN ABOUT
2015 WHEN THEY WERE SAYING THIS
IS... THIS ISN'T... THIS IS A
PRIVATE MONOPOLY VERSUS A PUBLIC
MONOPOLY, RIGHT?

Steve says BUT AS YOU LOOK AT
THE... LIKE, LOOK AT THE PACE OF
HISTORY OVER THE PAST CENTURY.
YOU KNOW?
WE HAD IT, AND THEN THERE WAS
PROHIBITION IN PLACE AND WE
WEREN'T ALLOWED TO HAVE IT.
IT WAS VERY MYSTERIOUS AND BOOZE
WOULD BE EVIL AND SO ON AND SO
FORTH.
WOULD YOU SAY EVER SINCE THEN,
THOUGH, WE'VE BEEN IN A CONSTANT
ATTEMPT TO KIND OF LIBERALIZE
SALES?

Dan says ABSOLUTELY.
I WOULD SAY THE PROHIBITION WAS
THE HIGH POINT OR THE LOW POINT,
DEPENDING ON YOUR POINT OF VIEW,
OF LIQUOR RESTRICTION.
BUT IT WASN'T... A LOT OF PEOPLE
LOOK AT PROHIBITION AS THIS
RADICAL CHANGE.
IT WASN'T.
IT WAS A GRADUAL PROCESS TO THE
POINT WHERE PROHIBITION, EVEN
THOUGH IT WAS FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT
TO JUST STOP SELLING, LIQUOR HAD
BEEN INCREASINGLY RESTRICTED AND
ACCESS POINTS TO IT, THE COST OF
IT HAD BEEN RESTRICTED.
SO YES, SINCE THEN WE SAW IN
1927 WE GOT LIQUOR STORES, BUT
IT WASN'T UNTIL 1934 THAT WE HAD
PUBLIC DRINKING OF BEER AND
WINE.
BEER IN HOTEL BEVERAGE ROOMS,
WINE AND BEER IN HOTEL DINING
ROOMS.
IT WAS ALL CENTERED ON THE
HOTEL, WHICH WAS A
PRE-PROHIBITION FORMAT.
HOTEL WAS ALREADY A MANAGED
BUSINESS, SO YOU ALREADY HAD A
MANAGER RUNNING A BIGGER
BUSINESS, SO IT WAS KIND OF
DISINTERESTED MANAGEMENT BECAUSE
THEY WEREN'T SUPPOSED TO BE
PROFITING FROM THE BOOZE.
THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO PROFIT
FROM THE HOTEL BUSINESS, AND
BOOZE WAS JUST PART OF... YOU
KNOW, IF YOU HAVE A DINING ROOM,
YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE A
DRINK.
IF YOU'RE AT HOME YOU SHOULD BE
ABLE TO HAVE A DRINK.
HOTEL IS A HOME AWAY FROM HOME,
SO YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE A
DRINK THERE, RIGHT?
AND THEN IN 1946 THEY ALLOWED
SPIRITS TO BE SOLD IN THESE
PLACE, AND THEY INCREASED THE
TYPES OF PLACES.
SO THEY HAD LOUNGES THAT WERE
REMOVED FROM HOTELS.
IT WAS A GRADUAL CHANGE AWAY
FROM IT, BUT IT WAS ALWAYS THIS
TENSION BETWEEN PEOPLE WANTING
TO DRINK AND PEOPLE CONCERNED
ABOUT OVER-DRINKING AND
CONCERNED ABOUT TOO LIBERAL OF
ACCESS.

Steve says LET'S LOOK IN THE LAST
THREE AND A HALF DECADES OR SO.
IT WAS 1985 THAT THE PREMIER
PROMISED WINE AND BEER IN THE
CORNER STORES.
IT FINALLY HAPPENED UNDER
KATHLEEN WYNNE'S PREMIERSHIP,
AND NOW YOU'RE SEEING PREMIER
FORD TAKE IT TO THE NEXT STEP,
WHICH IS A QUITE SIGNIFICANT
LIBERALIZATION OF SALES, 9:00 IN
THE MORNING, MANY MORE OUTLETS
THAT ARE GOING TO BE AVAILABLE.
IS THERE ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
THAT YOU CAN POINT TO AS TO WHAT
HAPPENS TO A SOCIETY WHEN YOU
DRAMATICALLY OPEN THE TAPS FOR
LIQUOR SALES?

The caption changes to "Reshaping alcohol policy."

Dan says THERE HAS BEEN SOME.
I CAN'T THINK OF IT OFF THE TOP
OF MY HEAD BECAUSE I GO BACK
HISTORICALLY TO THE 1860S WHEN
IT WAS A MUNICIPAL-BASED FAIRLY
WIDE OPEN SYSTEM.
AND THERE WAS A LOT OF CONCERN,
AND THAT'S NOT THE ROOTS AT THE
TEMPERANCE MOVEMENT.
IT'S MUCH EARLIER THAN THAT, BUT
THE TEMPERANCE MOVEMENT REALLY
KICKED INTO HIGH GEAR IN THE
1860S AND '70S.
AND THIS IS BECAUSE OF CONCERNS
OVER PUBLIC DISORDER, CONCERNS
OVER THE EFFECT ON THE FAMILY,
CONCERNS... IN THE SENSE OF
MONEY GOING OUT OF THE FAMILY PURSE.

Steve says WE'RE HEARING THESE
ARGUMENTS AGAIN TODAY.

Dan says WE HEAR THEM AGAIN.
AND THE TEMPERANCE MOVEMENT
NEVER DISAPPEARED.
IT STILL EXISTS, AND IT OFTEN
MANIFESTS ITSELF IN PUBLIC
HEALTH ARGUMENTS, RIGHT?
IT'S NO LONGER ABOUT THE
MORALITY OF SOCIETY.
IT'S ABOUT THE HEALTH OF
SOCIETY, AND SO WE JUMP TO THESE
CONCLUSIONS, OR PEOPLE WILL JUMP
TO THESE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON
SOMETIMES NOT REALLY CONVINCING
EVIDENCE BECAUSE THEY WILL...
YOU KNOW, THEY'RE GOING TO BREAK
TOWARDS THE PROBLEM.

Steve says SO AS THE FORD
GOVERNMENT CONSIDERS ITS
POSITION TODAY, IT'S ANNOUNCED
WHAT IT WANTS TO DO, BUT JUST
FINALLY WHAT SHOULD IT TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT BASED ON WHAT YOU KNOW
OF THE HISTORY OF THIS MOVEMENT?

Dan says I WOULD SAY THAT IT NEEDS
TO... THERE'S A TENDENCY TO WANT
TO MAKE BIG POLICY
ANNOUNCEMENTS, BUT IT DOES NEED
TO TREAD CAREFULLY, IF ONLY
BECAUSE THE OPTICS OF RADICAL
CHANGES CAN HAVE PULLBACK
EFFECTS.
THEY CAN HAVE NEGATIVE POLITICAL
EFFECTS.
IF THEY ARE THINKING
POLITICALLY, THEY HAVE TO BE
CAREFUL BECAUSE THERE IS THIS
BALANCE.
PREMIER FORD SAYS THINGS LIKE
WE'RE ALL ADULTS HERE.
AND IT'S TRUE THAT PEOPLE
DRINKING ARE ADULTS, BUT NOT ALL
PEOPLE AFTER THEY'VE BEEN
DRINKING ACT LIKE ADULTS, RIGHT?
SO THERE'S THIS... THERE'S A BIT
OF A POLICING ISSUE OR
SURVEILLANCE ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO
BE CONSIDERED.
I DON'T THINK REALLY THAT A 9:00
OPENING IS A PROBLEM, REALLY.

Steve says SOME PEOPLE GETTING
OFF ALL-NIGHT SHIFTS OBVIOUSLY
WANT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A PINT
AFTER WORK.

Dan says ABSOLUTELY, AND NOT TO
MENTION THAT IT'S GOING TO BE IN
AN ENVIRONMENT THAT'S ALREADY
CONTROLLED, RIGHT?
THEY ARE A LICENSED HOLDER, THEY
HAVE BARTENDERS AND SERVERS AND
THAT WHOSE JOB IS KIND OF TO
KEEP AN EYE ON PEOPLE.
MORE CONCERN MIGHT BE FOR THINGS
LIKE THE TAILGATING, RIGHT?
WHICH IS ACTIVELY... I WOULD
ARGUE ACTIVELY ENCOURAGING
OVER-DRINKING, AND THAT'S WHERE
PEOPLE WILL... THAT'S WHERE
OPPOSITION WILL TARGET, AND I
DON'T MEAN POLITICAL OPPOSITION,
BUT OPPOSITION TO DRINKING WILL
TARGET THEIR CONCERNS. THEY'LL
SAY LOOK AT WHAT'S HAPPENING
UNDER THIS GOVERNMENT, RIGHT?
AND THAT COULD BE A PROBLEM.
AT THE SAME TIME, OVERLY
RESTRICTIVE POLICIES DON'T WORK
EITHER BECAUSE PROHIBITION WAS
THE MOST... WE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE
THE MOST RESTRICTIVE TYPE OF
PROHIBITION IN CANADA BECAUSE
THEY COULD STILL DISTILL.
IT DIDN'T WORK BECAUSE PEOPLE
STILL WANTED TO DRINK.

Steve says AS WITH EVERYTHING IN
POLITICS, YOU HAVE TO FIND THE
SWEET SPOT. CAN I PLUG YOUR
BOOK? WOULD YOU MIND?

Dan says PLEASE.

The caption changes to "Producer: Katie O'Connor, @KA_OConnor; Student Intern: Maria Sarrouh."

Steve says TRY TO CONTROL
YOURSELF, DAN. THAT IS THE
TITLE OF YOUR BOOK.
"TRY TO CONTROL YOURSELF: THE
REGULATION OF PUBLIC DRINKING
IN POST-PROHIBITION ONTARIO."
DAN MALLECK FROM BROCK
UNIVERSITY, THANKS SO MUCH FOR
COMING IN TO TVO TONIGHT.

The caption changes to "Subscribe to The Agenda Podcast: tvo.org/theagenda."

Dan says MY PLEASURE. THANK YOU.

Watch: Lessons from Post-Prohibition