Is it angst or constipation? I can't keep it straight when I read these things:
New rules brought in by the P.E.I. Liquor Control Commission allow people eating at Island restaurants to buy a bottle of P.E.I.-made alcohol to take away. People will have to eat a full meal in order to be able to do that, and the amount of unopened beer, spirits or wine that can be purchased will be limited. Restaurants will have to get a special licence from the Commission. Jamie MacLeod, director of corporate services, said feedback from manufacturers and restaurant owners has been positive... "Ours is more restrictive. The customer, patron of the premise, must first purchase and consume a full-course meal."
A full course meal. I used to be a lawyer in Canada's tiny town of a province so I know... so I just bet some committee of second cousins to someone sat around and wrote the regulation that defines what a "full course meal" is. But it's not just there, is it. Each jurisdiction takes immeasurable pride in its ability to create unique useless rules related to the drink. Ontario is surrounded by jurisdictions with grocery stores with beer on the shelf but our own betters know that is truly Satan's choice. But in New York beer can't be seen with wine. And in Quebec the local beer can't mix with the stuff from away. To what end?
All of which does make one wonder what we might better do with these committees of the professionally or nepotistically concerned in their quest for the separate, unique rule. I am all in favour of a good solid set of rules, don't get me wrong. But does each corner of the country, the continent, the world really need its own expression of angstity doubt as to its own population's ability to have a beer?