Why do I have to tell people this kind of stuff?
The Govt's plans to restrict liquor outlets in local shopping areas is going to have the opposite effect of what i assume is their goal - to get people to drink less. How so? Well, instead of buying a bottle of vodka at small 'mum and dad' wine store for $35, people will just drive that extra minute to the large discount franchise store and buy it for $25 instead, perhaps picking up a six-pack as well. Do they really think that by eliminating the little guys who pepper the suburbs and leaving liquor sales in the hands of the larger, cheaper stores is going to stop people buying alcohol? It's only going to drive them to the cheaper warehouses and monopolistic supermarkets. Way to go, retards.

Another assumption that's being played out is that the concentration of liquor stores is causing any percieved problems, which is an outright fallacy. It's a basic tenet of capitalism that supply follows demand, not the reverse. There are loads of liquor stores in some areas because there is high demand for liquor, not the other way around. When I go to buy some cold ones, if there are two liquor stores on the block, I don't buy twice as much - that's retarded. But if I'm forced to go to a discount liquor warehouse because there are no local stores, chances are I'll buy more - for one, it's cheaper, and secondly, it's harder to get to so I'll buy more incase I don't get back again anytime soon.

A strange, non-argument some people have tried to make is that liquor stores are sometimes right next to dairies... and? There is no second half to this argument. Where are they meant to go? No one seems to have asked that question.

If it is the concentration of liquor outlets causing the 'problem', then why aren't areas with far higher concentrations having the same issues/being singled out?

Because it isn't a problem - it's a scapegoat.

PS. Why is it every time I tag an entry 'politics' or 'journalism', the 'idiots' tag nearly always follows?