I'm admittedly not much of a drinker, but I feel that the current restrictive system actually encourages excessive consumption among people who do drink.

Right now, if my husband mows the lawn on a Sunday evening and decides he wants a beer afterwards, there's no way for him to get one, short of driving to the nearest bar and drinking there (then driving home). The option to just go buy a single beer from a store to take home and enjoy at 7pm on a Sunday just is not available anywhere within an hour's drive of the mid-sized Ontario city in which I live.

"So, stock up in advance," comes the obvious reply. Sure: instead of buying a single beer when he wants one, my husband can just buy a six-pack of beers to keep in the fridge just in case. But isn't the whole moral argument of the LCBO/Beer Store that alcohol is a dangerous, wickedly tempting substance that should be made as inconvenient as possible to get? Now he's got a six-pack sitting cold and ready in the fridge, staring him right in the eye every time he opens the door. Now, instead of mowing the lawn on Sunday evening, thinking "Hey, a beer would be nice after working outside on a nice summer evening," and having one then, maybe he opens the fridge on Friday evening first, sees the beer, and thinks "Hey, beer! That looks good, maybe I'll crack open one or two of those to welcome in the weekend."

My husband is a man of moderation and not much of a drinker himself, so simply having the stuff on hand doesn't turn him into a raging alcoholic or anything... but it does present him with the opportunity - the temptation - to indulge more often than if he just went out and bought a beer when he wanted one. How on earth is it better or more moral or more temperate in any way to force people to keep more alcohol in the house than they want to consume at any time, just as a hedge against wanting a simple drink during one of the 89 hours in a 168 hour week that the local Beer Store isn't open?