Does Anyone Else Find This Stupid?

EvilGentleman: 1st May 2006 - 03:39 GMT

The translation is something like this:

There's a game on?
There's beer (here).
There's your brand (here).

The man in the poster is holding a 6-pack of Labatt Blue and a 6-pack of Molson Export.

elaine: 1st May 2006 - 09:09 GMT

the kind of happy people look before a fatal car crash, maybe?

Cameo: 1st May 2006 - 17:06 GMT

*hic* no... nothing wrong. Screettttchh!

*smash*

Grange: 1st May 2006 - 20:15 GMT

and when i get them , if their alive ,and i ask them how much they have had to drink , they almost always say " 1 or 2 beers". and they cant even walk ...
if i had a case of what ever beer they were drinking ,my case would last a year ....

chiamattt: 1st May 2006 - 21:57 GMT

If you think a poster advertising beer at a gas station is bad...do you also think it is bad that restaurants and bars that sell alcoholic beverages have parking lots?

Grange: 2nd May 2006 - 01:09 GMT

yep . should anyone want a nice discription of a smashed up drunk driver . I could supply it.

EvilGentleman: 2nd May 2006 - 03:50 GMT

Hmmm, chiamatt's question brings up some valid points. My instinctive response would be to say that providing parking at establishments that serve alcohol is inviting people to drink and drive, and therefore should not be permitted. Having said that, however, I must also point out that many, if not most people that go to restaurants with liquor licenses do not actually drink and drive. But then the same could be applied to bars, which I can personally attest to, since I go to bars a fair bit, but seldom drink, and I never, and I do mean never, drink and drive. If I want to drink, the car stays at home and I take the bus to the bar. But since any time I drive to the bar, I do not consume alcohol, it seems unfair to punish people who are able to have fun at bars without drinking. And then comes the worst part of this logic I am using right now... If people can go to drinking establishments without drinking, it also stands to reason that people can buy beer at gas stations and then go home responsibly, and only drink after they have parked the car at home and gone inside for the night. But I think the difference between advertising alcohol sales at places where practically everyone is driving a motor vehicle, and allowing customers at drinking establishments to park is pretty substantial. In one case, a company is actively encouraging the sale of alcohol to motorists. In the other, bars may merely be giving people a place to leave their car for the night. In the final analysis, I would have to say that gas station beerr ads - NO; licensed restaurant parking - YES; bar parking - YES, if either the parking is required to be overnight or the parking spots are reserved for designated drivers who must pass a breathalyser before the car is released. Otherwise - NO. What do you guys and gals think?

And Grange, are you an ambulance driver or paramedic?

Mat-E: 2nd May 2006 - 16:59 GMT

I think this question touches on a fundamental human reality; you can never create a policy which will satisfy a largely civil, responsible majority and at the same time satisfy a minority of total idiots (i.e. drunk drivers - sorry to be so judgemental, but if you drive drunk, you are an idiot by definition). There will always be idiots in the world, and I believe it's unfortunate when fear-mongering takes over and governments, cities, etc. set up social policy to save the idots from themselves, at the expense of all of the rest of us (except in a few isolated extreme cases, like handguns). It will always be an imperfect balance. Should liquor stores / bars / restaurants have parking lots? Of course. Does the fact that you drive somewhere to buy liquor inherently mean you will crack it open on the way home? Of course not. What's my point? Taking down the beer sign at the Esso will not stop idiots from driving drunk. Nor is the sign in any way encouraging responsible people to crack open their Cinquante on the way home. I'm not surer about Quebec, but it is illegal to openly encourage drinking or drunkenness in Ontario (e.g. bars sanctioning drinking contests), but it is not illegal to encourage the purchase of alcohol (e.g. bars having cheap beer night, or the LCBO putting Beefeater on sale for a week). This is because the latter still leaves it up to you to decide how to use the alcohol. Our entire society (particularly American society) is based on the assumption that 'we the people' are inherently smart enough to know right from wrong, and know the consequences, without our governments shoving it down our throats. This assumption gives us many critical benefits over, say, a communist society (free speech, freedom to assemble and protest...). Unfortunately, it also makes it a little easier for idiots to do stupid things.
All of that said, I do still find it funny every time I go to la Belle Province to see gas station coolers chock-a-block with beer. That's democracy for ya!

EvilGentleman: 2nd May 2006 - 18:26 GMT

I remember during my 1999 tour of America: The Eastern 30, we stopped at a supermarket somewhere NW of Lafayette to get some munchies to keep the family going while on the road to the next stop, Shreveport. On the way out, there was a display rack of 10-oz bottles of assorted hard liquors, such as whiskey, bourbon and scotch (about $3.50 each, if I recall right). These bottles were located beyond the cash registers in the position usually reserved for impulse last-minute items such as toilet paper, bottled water or potting soil, things which do not get stolen much, so it is safe to leave them there.

I am in line, staring in amazement at the liquor rack by the exit, and then the guy in front of me finishes his purches, starts to leave, then says, "Hold on, ah forgot mah whiskey." He grabs a bottle of whiskey, dashes back to the cash register and pays for it, then leaves. I then make my purchases, and leave as well.

When I get to the parking lot, the guy with the whiskey is just finishing putting his groceries in the trunk car parked next to me, and is just about to get in his car, when a local police cruiser pulls in on the other side of his car. He suddenly stops, pulls his bottle of whiskey out of his pocket and takes a healthy swig from the bottle. He then puts the cap back on, hops in his car and starts it. As he is starting to pull out, he takes another big swig from his whiskey bottle, makes a cheers-like gesture at me with his bottle while nodding in a friendly manner, turns and waves at the cop, then pulls out, leaving me and the cop facing each other across the now-empty parking spot. As I stare dumfounded at what I just saw, I notice the cop is actually waving back at the guy! I could not believe my eyes!
Finally the cop notices me staring at him with a shocked expression on my face, and this conversation ensues:

Cop: Kin ah help yuh, suh?
Me: Didn't you just see that? Aren't you gonna do something?
Cop: Do what? He ain't doin' nuthin' wrong.
Me: But he's drinking and driving!
Cop: Y'all is not from around heah, are yuh?
Me: Huh?
Cop (laughing now): Yuh see, what y'all don't unnerstand is that in the fahn state of Louweesianner, drinkin' and drivin's legal, just so long's he ain't drunk by the time he gets home.
Me: Are you serious?
Cop: Yessuh. Thank y'all for yer concern, and y'all have a nice day now.

Okay, at this point, I am just totally freaked out, but I continue on my trip. About 15 minutes later, I pull onto Interstate 49 and get up to my cruising speed. About 10 minutes after that, I get pulled over by a Louisiana State Trooper. For some reason, the State Troopers have much milder accents, so I will just type it normal-like, y'all.

Trooper: What do you think you're doing?
Me: Sorry, sir?
Trooper: What does the sign there (he's pointing) say the speed limit is?
Me: It says 70 miles per hour, sir.
Trooper: That's right. Do you have any idea how fast you were going?
Me: Um, I think I was doing about 78. Sorry, but I thought there was usually like a 10 mph grace or something like that.
Trooper: Sir, I clocked you doing 81 miles an hour! We take these things seriously around here!
Me: Sorry, officer
Trooper: I'm gonna give you a break, and just give you a speeding ticket this time, but if I ever catch you going fast like that in my area again, I'll be charging you with dangerous driving, and you will be behind bars. Do you understand me?
Me: Yes, Sir. Sorry, Sir.
Trooper: Here you go. Now, you have 30 days to pay this ticket, and if you are from out of state, you can just mail the fine to the Natchitoches (he pronounced it Nag-A-Douche) Court House, this is the address. Now get on your way now, and please drive safer from now on.

Wow. Just freaking wow. Talk about twisted priorities. Later on in Shreveport, I was looking in the travel guide part of my road atlas, and it listed the legal limit for alcohol in each state, as well as speed limits on intertates in both rural and urban areas, etc. I looked at the legal acohol limits, and wouldn't you know it - while most states had a legal limit of 0.8%, although some were a bit less at that time, Louisiana had the highest legal limit at 1.0%! Not only can you drink and drive legally in this state, you can drink more than in other states! Holy shit.

Anyways, I paid my ticket by mail, and that was the end of it. $141.00 in US currency down the drain.

EvilGentleman: 2nd May 2006 - 18:39 GMT

Hey man, thanks. Just wait till I'm jack's age... only 27 more years to go...

chiamattt: 3rd May 2006 - 06:38 GMT

It is sad that people assume this ad will increase the number of drunk drivers. Lets just get rid of all advertising at gas stations.

What if there is an ad for eyeliner and someone buys that eyeliner and tries it out while driving and crashes the car? What if. What if. What if. What if.

We depend on laws and regulations too much. Quite frankly, I think it is getting out of hand.

Drinking and driving is wrong...no matter what the circumstance is. When you get a license you sign a contract that says you will obey the rules of the road. Blaming your illegal act on an ad at a gas station is just silly.

EvilGentleman: 3rd May 2006 - 15:03 GMT

chiamatt, your points are valid, but if Canada can pass laws that state that tobacco companies cannot sponsor sporting events or family-oriented events where children are present, so as to protect children from being influenced by the evils of tobacco, then it seems logical enough to try to prevent drunk driving by whatever means is neccesary. In the province of Quebec, convenience stores are permitted to sell alcoholic beverages that have less than 15 or 20% alcohol (I'm not sure of the exact amount, but I know they can sell wines, but not spirits). This is part of the culture here, and I just have to accept that part. And since some convenience stations are also gas stations, I can accept that too. But aiming advertising specifically at drivers seems quite irresponsible to me. And what exactly do my children learn, despite my best efforts to warn them to either not consume alcohol, or to consume it responsibly, should they ever decide to become drinkers? They will feel that it is ok, everyone else does it, so what? This is not right. I realize that in other countries, there are very different attitudes about this issue, but there is nothing wrong with a good debate about it. Since you usually post from Seoul, Korea, I assume that is where you live. Perhaps the Korean people have a more mature outlook on life and responsibility that makes this whole debate silly. But you have to remember that a large portion of North America's population are spoiled, whiny, irresponsible babies, who only think of themselves. Add onto that the fact that due to the ever-increrasing number of services that are provided by our governments, yet nobody wants higher taxes, the governments have become accustomed to cutting back on essential services such as police. This means that when I decide to go to the bar and drink Coke or 7up while I hang out with my friends, when I drive home at closing time, although I am perfectly sober, 3/4 of the people on the road with me are drunk. There are simply not enough police to stop them, and it is getting worse. Driving in those conditions is extremely dangerous, and no matter how well you try to avoid them, near-collisions with drunk drivers are common. I have always been under the impression that Korea takes law and order very seriously, so maybe your situation is different. And I can well imagine jeeff might wish to mention the sidewalk beer vending machines of Japan, as well. But in our society, we have too little police presence to realistically deter drunk driving, so adding thoughtless advertising does add to the problem.

chiamattt: 3rd May 2006 - 22:25 GMT

EvilGentleman, I was born and raised in Toronto. My father is from Terrebonne, a city just outside of Montreal. I understand the dynamics of Quebec. I am outraged that the canes downed the habs in game six.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree. Law and legislation does not replace the social bond of community and perceieved social responsibility. That's what NA has lost and replaced with bylaws, rules, and legislation.

Elicar: 3rd May 2006 - 23:01 GMT

The bartender of the club, the host of a party, the employer..These people could all be held responsible for the behaviour of a drunk. Why didn't the bartender call a cab? Why didn't the host offer her couch? Why didn't the employer arrange for a ride after the company function?

Why is it someone else's fault?

The drunk was sober before the first drink! If he had some sense of responsibility, it's easy enough to arrange for a ride home if he decides to drink.

Yes, children are very impressionable. But the government or the school for that matter, could not substitute good parenting. No matter how many laws or bylaws there are, we will be filling up the prison system if we rely on the government to do the parenting job. Sadly, some parents expect the teachers do their jobs and think of themselves as good parents when they are able to provide food, shelter and clothing. Morals and values are essential elements of a healthy society.

EvilGentleman: 4th May 2006 - 01:47 GMT

chiamatt, Elicar... What we have here... is a failure... to communicate (cue acoustic guitar)
I never claimed that others were responsible for the actions of drunk drivers. It is always the responsibility of the person who is drinking to make sure that they are responsible for their actions. It is just unfortunate that due to the fact that we do not have enough police, that we now are faced with this scenario of having to do things differently in order to protect idiots from their own stupidity. This is not a legal issue, it is simply common sense. If a community has a problem with kids getting solvents so they can sniff them to get high, then yes, the store is not under any obligation to put the solvents somewhere that they cannot be accessed easily. But it is common sense to do so, even though it should be the responsibility of the parents. It is much the same case here. People should be responsible enough to know not to drink and drive. But reality is often very different.

You are both 100% correct about the need for society to be more responsible. But until that actually occurs, why play with matches in the woodshop, if you know what I mean?

Elicar hit the nail squarely on the head when she mentioned the need for good parenting. It seems very few people teach their children the meaning of responsibility these days, and Generation X, the generation I come from, is the first generation to not be taught responsibility, in my opinion. The freedom of the 60's is now excting a heavy toll, as children born in the Hippie days seem to have no concept of responsibility, and it is now passing down to another generation.

A return to decent family values, not neccesarily in a neo-conservative sense, but in a common-sense fashion, is greatly needed. It is comforting to know that other people are aware of this failure of our society. Maybe there is still a chance to fix things.

I can only hope that I am doing a good enough job with my own kids. I am fortunate enough to have two adolescent kids that are decent enough that other parents often stop me to comment on how nice they are. My kids are respectful and polite, considerate of others and understand the meaning of the words "responsibility" and "no". At the same time, they have absolutely no fear whatsoever to speak to me about any subject, to correct me if I am wrong, or to let me know in a respectful fashion when they feel I am not being fair. If it turns out that I have raised them correctly, then the main part of my job to make this world a better place will have been accomplished. Only time will tell, and I will have to rely on other, non-biased opinions to determine whether or not I have been successful. Wish me luck, and good luck to you other parents out there.

While I may not agree with you on other issues, I am very thankful that we seem to have similar outlooks on the need for good parenting. That is the single most important issue in the world today.

chiamattt: 4th May 2006 - 05:51 GMT

yeah...so why is a sign selling beer bad? I am not going to argue that you are or are not a good parent. When you walk by a sign selling beer at the gas station...why not just point at it and make your opinion of it clear to your children and move on. Why do we need some kind of regulation to dictate to us what we should and should not see? What ever happened to the words Free and Market?

EvilGentleman: 4th May 2006 - 06:55 GMT

chiamatt, by any chance, are you in advertising? You seem pretty adamant about this. I am just stating my opinion, and explaining why this will affect my decision as to where I spend my gas money. I just simply find these sort of ads to be inappropriately located, nothing more. I am not suggesting we knock down every neon Budweiser sign within sight of a road, or any such nonsense as that. But rampant capitalism without a conscience has a negative effect, and I am commenting on that. And the words free and market would refer to how Esso (Exxon Canada) is allowed to sell shares on the stock market, which they do, along with Labatt and Molson-Coors. If the industry wishes to push some boundaries, some people will decide to push back. That is democracy with freedom of speech for you. In the end, the whole thing comes down to poor taste, in my opinion. Kind of like building a senior's home next to a cemetery, it can be done, but why would you want to? Esso could just as easily put large ads inside the station advertising their beer sales in a spot where all the drivers will see it as they go inside to pay. Most people will not pay at the pumps, since Esso has this bad habit of automatically getting authorization for $100.00 every time you use your credit card at the pumps, and them releasing the unused portion a few days later. So advertising inside would be equally effective, and would not create a situation where people come to associate gas with beer. I personally feel such stupidity should be regulated, if the companies themselves are not willing to use common sense. Tell me, how do you feel about tobacco advertising? If it was a pack of Benson and Hedges on the poster, would you feel any different? You see, I am not of the belief that big business should be guiding the evolution of morals in society. I think that job is best decided by the people, of which I am one. Nowadays, it seems that what we see is controlled by Hollywood, the media and ad executives. I think it is high time we took a little piece of our freedom back, and tell these mind-programmers where to shove their crass self-serving crap.

chiamattt: 5th May 2006 - 03:21 GMT

EvilGentleman, I honestly think you make some good points. I think I would have agreed with you a few years ago. I guess I changed. Not in either direction of good or bad. Ya know? Anyway, as much as your points do make sense I think if we control one or two products, we should just control them all. We should probably control ads for caffeine, junk food, violent movies, and anything else that might upset someone or cause them any sort of long term harm.

I am not in advertising, I just think government could take the money spent on bullshit legislation, the cost of new signs, documents desribing the legistlation, and instead use it to pay the same ad companies to make campaigns to educate the public at-large. The future is bound by education and debate, not bylaws and regulations. Those are draconian. Nuff said.

www.drivkid.org/blog/2006/04/puff-puff.html

Grange: 5th May 2006 - 12:19 GMT

Good posts guys from everyone ( except for one ,, I wish George W would use his real name ..lol.)

EvilGentleman: 5th May 2006 - 15:01 GMT

chiamattt (I think I finally got 3 t's in there this time!), if that idea of yours could become a reality, I think I would definitely support it. You definitely got my mind going with this one. Further educating the public would definitely improve the quality of life for all. Actually, I think it should start even earlier. Instead of giving all that money to ad companies, why not put it into the education system? (Ok, ok, 10% of the budget goes to the company Catherine Penfold-Waxman works for, but only if they put her in charge )

And one draconian law that might get support: For families that are having a first child, create a new parental benefit where one parent will get an extended period for parental leave (maybe 2 years or so), but they are obligated to attend classes on how to be a good parent. The places where these classes are taught would be set up as daycares, so the parents and children can get together with trained child care professionals. Failure to pass the courses could result in an assessment visit from child welfare authorities. Just imagine what great things a society could accomplish, if the people in that society had parents that actually knew what the hell they were doing. Spin-off benefits from this approach may include reduced rates of suicide and substance abuse, a better-educated population, a much lower crime rate, etc.

On top of all this, you put most of the remaining money into the schools. Make sure the kids have proper educations, a sense of responsibility, tolerance and self-respect. With huge cash infusions, we could demand better training for our teachers, who would in turn receive a better pay. We could have more teachers, so that subjects such as art, music, computers and physical education could actually mean something. Make driver education part of the school program, so that we have better drivers on the road. Make nutrition a class of its own, not just a week of lessons in phys ed or science, like it currently is. Make communications and sociology mandatory high-school subjects. Extend the school hours or the school year if need be, in order to accommodate the extra material. Once we have a generation who have been trained how to be good parents, let the parents decide what other subjects and course material should be taught to the children. Well-balanced, healthy people need to learn a lot of different skills, so let's teach those skills to all the children.

Beyond all that, then we move on to your original idea of advertising campaigns aimed at educating the public about how to be responsible citizens.

If we could do all this, there would be significant savings on government spending in other areas such as law enforcement, justice, health care, unemployment benefits, welfare and so on.

Anyways, back to our original debate. I think you can agree that some controls are needed in certain areas, such as not having the pornography industry putting ads around school yards, and common-sense stuff like that. So really, our debate is not about whether or not controls are needed, but is actually about where to draw the line. I agree that government has become a bloated, inefficient waste of money that is choking us to death with stupid laws regulating everything except what time to take a shit. When I moved back down to the city after living for so many years, in the Arctic, I was shocked at how many rules and regulations there were down here. The amount of paperwork needed to support all these stupid laws probably accounts for a significant amount of the deforestation occurring today. Save a tree, eat a lawmaker. (Did I mention I was pro-cannibalism? Just kidding) If we had a population that was better prepared to deal with life, we would not need so many laws and regulations. That would be wonderful. "The future is bound by education and debate, not bylaws and regulations." Great sentence, wish I had thought of it. So true, so true.

EvilGentleman: 7th May 2006 - 07:33 GMT

I figured as much, Grange. Thank you for saving lives. I know it must take a lot out of you, but hopefully, you have some former patients who now remember you every holiday season. I have the greatest of respect for those who try to make this world a safer place. Keep up the good work. Every life you save is priceless.

EvilGentleman: 7th May 2006 - 18:59 GMT

Um, where did you find my middle name, Grange? I don't think I ever posted it.

And, You're welcome.

Grange: 9th May 2006 - 01:39 GMT

thats my first name . there should have been a comma ..opps

EvilGentleman: 14th May 2006 - 08:05 GMT

Just got home, sure were a lot of drunks on the highway. The car in front of me was weaving so badly, I was afraid to pass it, so I drove slow all the way home. He almost sideswiped about 4 other cars in the 10 miles I was behind him, and he almost hit the walls of the road about 7 or 8 times. I wonder if he made it home alive. Why don't people ever learn?

Grange: 15th May 2006 - 12:31 GMT

Got me evil , had a crash yesterday morning . Girl thought she was in barrie , problem was she was about 100 km away from there .79 yards when she left the road to where she stopped .She went between two trees and down the ditch ,when she was stopped on a fence . The fence was 30 feet from a pond . So she tryed to get unstuck and rips the rubber right off her wheels doing it . then she trys to go up the 20 slope of the ditch only to back throught the fence again and into a field, wher she gives up , gets in to he passanger seat to finish of her bottle of vodka. So she missed the trees, didnt go in the drink ( pond ) and didnt get hurt. Why dont people learn ? Got me man !

EvilGentleman: 15th May 2006 - 13:53 GMT

Maybe if they applied other tests at the same time as a driver's test. Like have the examiner offer beer to the applicant to relax them when they first get in the car. If the applicant accepts, the examiner says, "That will be all, thank you" and fails them on the spot. That would at least weed out some of the worst drunks of all. Then after that, a basic IQ test should be applied. Anyone who scores below 60, cannot take the test. That should eliminate a good deal of the other idiots who drive drunk. For the rest of them who remain, we will unfortunately have to wait till they get a drunk driving conviction. When they do, force them to have their cars modified (even if it's Daddy's, that should be fun) so that it can no longer travel at speeds greater than 50 km/h (30mph). At least this way, we cut down on the number of accidents at highway speeds, since the convicted drunks will have to use side roads. It may not eliminate drunk driving deaths, but it at least cuts down on those incidents involving alcohol and speed as factors. Crazy ideas? Yes they are, but not as crazy as driving drunk.

EvilGentleman: 15th May 2006 - 14:00 GMT

Say, Grange... Sometimes I find it difficult to find certain reliable data online. What percentage of alcohol-related fatal accidents would you say involve people who already have at least one previous drunk driving conviction? I suspect the answer may be quite revealing. And to think the government has the laws set up so that these idiots can get back on the road, even though driving is a privilege, not a right. Sad, isn't it?

Liz: 16th May 2006 - 02:53 GMT

EG I see your point about alcohol fueled car accidents, but oh how I envy Quebecers being able to go to the corner store to pick up a six-pack = {

EvilGentleman: 17th May 2006 - 16:51 GMT

Definitely, Liz. I felt the same way in Nova Scotia. Actually I thought Quebec was smarter, since I could walk any direction and get to a corner store and get beer, whereas in Nova Scotia, there were so few NS Liquor Commission outlets that you were forced to drive to go buy your beer.

sarcastic magician: 18th May 2006 - 00:53 GMT

Ahhh, Louisiana. Gotta love them coonasses. EG, you missed the drive-thru windows at the liquor stores! (yep, not only seen 'em, patronized them once on a trip over there) Now about the legal intoxication limit. It is 0.08% most places now (thanks to the Mad Mothers) and 0.10% across the Sabine River. At 1% you would be way past dead. All political. You'd be pretty hard pressed to document a difference in physical or mental acuity from someone who had 0.02% more alcohol in their bloodsteam.

But along this thread, the best comment I ever heard was from a fellow who moved here to Texas from St. Louis. He said for the first few years he thought Texas had a law that required people to hold a beer while they drove.

jeeff: 18th May 2006 - 02:20 GMT

fyi (as i didn't know and looked it up), 'coonass' is slang for a cajun person.
www.lafayettetravel.com/culture/history/what_is_cajun.cfm

EvilGentleman: 18th May 2006 - 03:05 GMT

magician, I gotta love the Texas law comment, it was hilarious.

As far as the accusation that I may have misplaced a few decimal points, I am 1000% sure that I have never done that in all my 360 years of life, and I try my best to know about America, since I have been to 480 of the 500 states, 300 of them in the year 19990. Although I did see 10/2 of them before, as well as 180 others. And I am jealous of your 700 mph speed limits on back roads there in Texas (the Ten Stars State). But now that I think about it, is $50.00 an abnormally high tip at a Pizza Hut? Hmmmm... no, I am tipping the standard 100 to 150%. I know I am right, cuz I always got at least 900% in math when I was younger.

rage: 26th May 2006 - 06:13 GMT

i think people can see a beer ad and resist the temptation to drive wasted. Its convenient not to have to make several trips to buy beer, gas and other supplies. It makes sense to advertise the products you sell...

zagg: 10th Oct 2006 - 22:01 GMT

waitaminutehere ... you can buy beer at gas stations?

i'm far too ontarioian to think thats a good idea

jeeff: 28th Mar 2007 - 01:32 GMT

why would you assume that people in ontario start drinking immediately after visiting the lcbo any more than quebecers start drinking immediately after visiting the gas station or dépanneur? that is truly absurd.