An article in yesterday's Victoria Times Colonist points out the unintended consequences of an antiquated liquor law.
Prior to Prohibition, a 'tied house' - a tavern that was contractually obligated to purchase alcohol from a specific manufacturer - would offer free lunches while encouraging the consumption of alcohol hence the phrase "there's no such thing as a free lunch." After the well-documented failure of Prohibition, tied house legislation was enacted in B.C. (and other North American jurisdictions) to, among other reasons, "prevent big brewers and distillers from owning the bars and restaurants where their products are sold and to protect small operators."
The article goes on to tell the story of a Victoria pub owner. The owner Dave Thomas is not allowed to sell his own ale in his new pub due to the 'tied-house rule' that was originally designed to help protect small operators like Thomas.
It's an interesting read on some regulatory folly.
(h/t WineLaw)
Comments