>>>IIRC you're suggesting the government supply them. You're forgetting about lawyers - if someone is injured or dies using gov't-supplied narcotics the gov't would be liable.
>>
>>
>>That's an issue, but hardly a critical one.
>>
>>There doesn't seem to be a problem with government supplied roads and traffic accidents.
>
>I suppose an even better argument would be that (up here at least) the gov't sells most booze, but doesn't get sued if anyone drinks themselves to death.
>
>Still, I'd expect inventive lawyers to give it a go.

But we do have liquor license acts (at least here in Ontario) sort of similar to host laws in the U.S. Hotels, restaurants, bars etc can be held liable for injury to persons whom they aid in becoming drunk. Normally it would be partial responsibility. I'm only personally aware of one such case here in Ontario. A bar served liquor to a drunk who went out and, walking along the roadway, got hit by a car. The liability was apportioned a third, a third, a third. There was another suit in which a woman got drunk and had an auto accident. She sued her host (it was a party) and won, but the decision was later overturned.

I suspect, but don't know for certain that if a(n) lcb outlet sold liquor to an already inebriated person, there would be hell to pay. Even possibly a lawsuit if that person were later hurt or hurt someone else. I think they're probably extremely careful about it. It's probably one of the main arguments being used to keep liquor out of the hands of your corner grocery store.