I’m a driver and I like speed cameras. Put them every 50m for all I care. They’re one of very few purely objective law enforcement methods. The camera doesn’t care if you’re black or white, or driving a red Porsche with racing stripes vs a white minivan, etc etc. Speeding is illegal and easily quantified and measurable. This is the lowest of low-hanging fruit on setting public expectations that laws matter and will be enforced consistently and without bias.
The little-acknowledged truth is that speed limits are far too low (they're supposed to represent the maximum speed in optimal conditions), but society lives with it because they trust human enforcement to exercise discretion about location, conditions, and severity of speeding - which traffic cops generally do.
I agree that that discretion can be abused in a multitude of ways, and I am perfectly fine with speed cameras in theory, even speed cameras that move around, but then we need to have a conversation about speed limits. For example, Manitoba's speed limit for divided rural highways is 90 km/h.
Weather conditions are a legitimate complicating factor I hadn’t thought of. Not sure how you’d account for that in an objective way. First snowfall of the year everyone forgets how to drive, and even the posted limits are too high. That said, 90kph is slow for highways IMO.
Human enforcement is made for people going too fast in bad weather. Camera enforcement is made for "even if conditions were perfect, that's too fast".
Speed limits need to be high enough, IMO, that casually exceeding them by 10 km/h isn't the norm. There are quite a few roads where doing the speed limit will seriously impede the flow of traffic.
What prompts people to feel like Mitch does is that if everybody is breaking a law constantly, there's effectively a new unwritten law, and the old law becomes an obsolete rule in a little book. People will feel outraged if you arbitrarily enforce the obsolete rule against a handful of people from time to time.
A speed limit needs to be high enough that if someone says "dude, I was just a few klicks over", they get zero sympathy, because what were you doing flirting with the limit in the first place?
Authority isn't given the benefit of the doubt within immigrant communities and Ford knows that.
Ford knows that speed limits matter and that they are set too low. Setting limits below accepted international standards and then enforcing them isn't acceptable among immigrants as it is with Red Tory types.
Alberta did it right IMHO. Every speed camera must be justified and the speed limit must be justified. Authority doesn't get the benefit of the doubt.
I find speed cameras annoying, but this attitude anti-camera justification irks me— is speeding okay or not? If it is not okay to speed, then the cameras are an acceptable part of the solution to achieve that policy goal. If it is okay to speed, then what's the point of having speed limits at all?
But they where moving them around! It was a revenue grab! They moved them out of school zones! Okay? So... don't speed. I don't get why that's not an option.
If speeding is okay, then let's make it official. I'd be okay with that. But if speed limits are staying let's use all the tools they need to maintain public safety. Yes, even if that means getting paying a speeding ticket from time to time.
If speeding is objectively illegal, then the conclusion that moving cameras around is nothing more than a cash grab is an egregious non sequitur. It's just as possible that the city is trying to eliminate speeding everywhere without putting up camera everywhere. It's an open question as to whether the cost of moving them around exceeds the cost of buying enough to go everywhere.
Given that speed limits have never been enforced absolutely, it raises the question of whether the current numbers are really the best limit if they are to be enforced absolutely, as with cameras.
Much has been made of the effects of speed in a collision with a pedestrian, but leaving pedestrians aside, one can easily defend much higher speeds on limited access highways. I believe that speed limits could also be subject to time of day, e.g. city streets between say, 12am and 6am could safely be subject to a much higher limit. Also, even though schools zones have a lower limit, is there a point for that lower limit during classroom hours when there are no kids on the street?
Even with the pedestrian collision argument, red light and speed cameras operating full time could reduce the likelihood of collisions so that a higher than 50 or 60 limit on city streets would be just as safe or safer than what we have now.
Shoehorning camera enforcement into current, unchangeable speed limits is the real dumb idea.
I agree completely with this. In my experience in Ottawa, many of the cameras are in reasonable spots, but some are quite egregious. For example, there is a speed camera on King Edward where the speed limit is 40. This sounds reasonable on the face of it, but the road is 6 lanes across and it is the main highway to cross over into Quebec. The speed limit is artificially low there, and picks up again on the bridge itself (I think the limit is 70, but people routinely are doing 100 on it). Just today, CTV published stats that show that this camera produces the second most tickets in the city (https://www.ctvnews.ca/ottawa/article/ottawas-photo-radar-cameras-caught-27000-speeders-in-august-here-are-the-hot-spots/). It had been the first in the past, but it was narrowly beaten out by another one.
Yes, the road goes through Lowertown where people live, but the solution is to redesign the streets to be safer and promote slower driving. The speed camera incentivizes the opposite, where the city loses if it does the right thing.
This all begs the question why the main highway to Quebec goes through a residential neighbourhood with a speed limit of 40, but that's beyond the pale to talk about.
What's needed isn't a camera though, what's needed is to redesign the road or shift that traffic out of the residential neighbourhood. As long as the City is making bank on tickets, they have no reason to change anything.
The writer's gripes have not been ny experience. Sudbury ran speed tests, identified the worst zones for speeding, and set up cameras in the worst places. They have 40 spots and six cameras so they move them around. They also have evidence that speeds have slowed even after the cameras move, because eventually the camera comes back.
Sometimes is is a bandaid for stupid urban planning, but they are great . Ford is wrong on this.
I live steps away from the infamous Parkside Dr. camera. While I don't like people who willingly and consciously speed, speed limit enforcement with automated cameras lacks all the nuances that a real police officer brings to enforcement with its corresponding discretion.
To wit:
- A driver doing 50 in a 30 zone near a school is objectively not the same as doing 90 on a 70 zone on a grade separated highway with no pedestrians. Yet, as far as I can tell, the punishment is the same.
- Toronto speed cameras have no mechanism for the offender to fight the tickets, like one can with any other ticket, even if the the owner wasn't behind the wheel.
- The fine carries no demerit points, which seriously undermines the safety argument as there is no real long-term consequence for repeat offenders. Someone wealthy enough can just pay the fines without further consequences, also undermining the equality argument.
- The enormous amount of money collected goes into the general city coffers, contributing to bloating the bureaucracy even more.
If safety was truly the issue, they would use all funds from speed cameras, redesign streets with safety in mind and install traffic calming features where appropriate, to eventually make the cameras unnecessary, because the street would - by design - prevent most instances of speeding.
The french went trough this 20 years before us and just see how much of a driving nightmare that country has become, while enriching an already bloated state. Driving on French roads is an exercise in constant fear of missing the next speed camera and get caught even at a few kph over the limit.
A lot of the complaints about speed cameras and photo radar speed traps have always rung false with me. A common criticism is that it's just a cash grab, pointing to the long interval between the offense and receiving a ticket, plus the fact that the ticket doesn't carry the demerit points for drivers that come with one issue by a cop. Both of those issues *could* be addressed with current technology: AI and computer systems could issue tickets instantly via e-mail or text without putting a human (and time lag) in the loop for review. Similarly, facial recognition technology combined with biometric driver's licenses could identify the driver and hit them with demerit points. Speeders who get hit with a ticket issued by a cop might be chastened for a brief period, but inevitably go back to speeding.
Of course, this would probably *increase* the intensity of hatred towards the systems: the problem is not really that people feel the system fails as a deterrent; it's that it's too effective at identifying speeders and issuing fines! Instant notification doesn't change the fact that you have to pay a fine; getting hit with demerit points at the same time just rubs salt in the wound. They're not going to stop speeding - it's just that they feel this tax on their behavior is stacked in the house's favor - they'd rather have the gamble of being able to spot the less frequent manned police speed traps.
Doug Ford has a majority government that can write and change laws. If he is troubled by the enforcement of a law then he should just change the law. Making the fines start at 10 or 15 km/h above the limit, for example, is entirely within his power. So is increasing the limit.
Impeding the enforcement of laws is the worst of all options.
Yup. I have said for years that if the goal is really to get people to slow down they would leave them in the places where speed is more of a safety issue, and they would make them readily visible. But when they hide the cameras in unmarked vehicles, move them constantly, set them up in obvious fishing holes, or (as in one publicized case in Edmonton) have 3 of them set up along the southbound lane of the same busy 6 lane each way divided thoroughfare with the result that as least one motorist got 3 tickets in a 15 minute period (the judge threw them out and rapped the city on the knuckles by the way) then we know that despite all mewlings to the contrary, it is really about the money, and not about safety at all. Ford has picked a winning issue on this. And any political opponent who takes the contrary position will be shooting themselves in the foot.
No surprise to see at the end that the author is a political advisor. These guys think every issue begins and ends with "was this smart communications strategy?"
Here I had the impression that The Line was intended to push against that mindset.
As a Line reader, I've generally enjoyed the views shared by political insiders, including those from Mitch. I appreciate the byline notes, too -- I'd rather see it declared where a writer is coming from than have to wade through pretenses of objectivity.
LOL, though, on "these guys think every issue begins and ends with "was this smart communications strategy." So true! :)
We don't have full year stats yet for 2025 in Calgary, obviously, but the Alberta government did away with random speed cams earlier this year, and as of late July 2025, Calgary is on track to experience an 8% increase in traffic incidents this year (as compared with 2024) -- which is completely in line with the 8% increase from 2021 to 2022, and the similar increases from 2022-23 and 2023-24.
...which these stats indicate is that the continued increases in traffic incidents have more to do with population growth than they have to do with speed cameras.
If this is supposed to be a "safety measure", it plainly does not work.
And let's not forget the 30 kph speed limits, speed bumps on every block, four way stops on every corner, unsynchronized traffic lights, delaying green lights until pedestrians have crossed even when there are no pedestrians, etc.
The system is designed for those who don't want to get anywhere.
Exactly Mitch EXACTLY. And if the cops that were supposedly freed up by these electronic tax thieves actually did POLICE work instead of padding their statistics by picking on otherwise law abiding citizens they might get some support but noooo. Let's go after the regular gun owner or the regular small business operator, they are easy targets; they want to be law abiding so they are "safe" to harass. Actual criminals might resist. They might have unregistered firearms. They might use them. (Ask that dad in Markham... oh wait, you can't he's DEAD. Ask his traumatized kids... funny THAT story got dropped fast.) So lets avoid that risk and just go after soft targets or even better show up as the second responders that they are to home invasions looking all spiffy with THEIR guns and armour that you ,John Q Citizen, are not allowed to have or use to save your family. But they look good and tough while telling you to "just cooperate", "Leave your key fobs by the door", thanks Chief. So yeah Doug, go after the cameras, but DO NOT STOP THERE! It's time to go after lazy cops (you think I'm off side, in Waterloo Region the 911 operator will ask if it's SAFE for their officer to respond before despatching them!!! Yes that happened when a range was reporting a suspicious customer and asking for help!) If they can make a victim into a criminal they will do their best. Easy score on the crime stats. After all catching actual criminals is risky.
Interesting, to me, this is not the first go round: I lived in Ontario when 24 hour news radio 680 news was new, and reporting the locations of moving speed cameras. This was at least 20 years ago and I'm pretty sure someone got elected promising to kill them. They were killed.
Several years ago, I heard a "progressive" councillor in my city, a proponent of 30 klom limits on EVERY street, say, "well, we should just MAKE them do it!", when told compliance will be a problem.
"Progressive" will remain in "" for some time because of this lack of interest, understanding, or acceptance of human behaviour, and/or decision-making. Like the Democrats in the U.S., when they're turfed, they remain confused for some time, until someone reminds them about democracy. "Progressive" egos, so faithful, so committed to their orthodoxy, never understand they lead by permission. They're convinced they lead by moral right.
I say fuck em for that, (and anyone who takes that stand.)
The technology is sound but the municipalities overestimated how much goodwill they had in their communities to play fast and loose with enforcement and revenue.
Ontario has notoriously low speed limits when compared to neighboring jurisdictions. It was okay as long as the Ontario game of being fuzzy with enforcement was played. (There must be some sort of cultural aspect to this). But hard enforcement of low speed limits in marginal safety areas is a bit much for today's Ontario. Immigration has changed Ontario greatly and immigrants tend to come from communities where authority isn't given the benefit of the doubt.
The problem ultimately is that there aren't enough bootlickers, authority deferring folks, hard core social conservatives or "at least it keeps my taxes down" types in Ontario. Ford knows that.
Does anyone know the cost of cancelling out of the contracts the municipalities have with the camera technology suppliers? Hard to imagine anyone but the provincial taxpayer will be footing the bill for this given the arbitrary and hard-line approach. This on top of paying three of the largest beer companies in the world $250M so we could move beer into the corner store one year early. Does anyone care?
I’m a driver and I like speed cameras. Put them every 50m for all I care. They’re one of very few purely objective law enforcement methods. The camera doesn’t care if you’re black or white, or driving a red Porsche with racing stripes vs a white minivan, etc etc. Speeding is illegal and easily quantified and measurable. This is the lowest of low-hanging fruit on setting public expectations that laws matter and will be enforced consistently and without bias.
The little-acknowledged truth is that speed limits are far too low (they're supposed to represent the maximum speed in optimal conditions), but society lives with it because they trust human enforcement to exercise discretion about location, conditions, and severity of speeding - which traffic cops generally do.
I agree that that discretion can be abused in a multitude of ways, and I am perfectly fine with speed cameras in theory, even speed cameras that move around, but then we need to have a conversation about speed limits. For example, Manitoba's speed limit for divided rural highways is 90 km/h.
Weather conditions are a legitimate complicating factor I hadn’t thought of. Not sure how you’d account for that in an objective way. First snowfall of the year everyone forgets how to drive, and even the posted limits are too high. That said, 90kph is slow for highways IMO.
Human enforcement is made for people going too fast in bad weather. Camera enforcement is made for "even if conditions were perfect, that's too fast".
Speed limits need to be high enough, IMO, that casually exceeding them by 10 km/h isn't the norm. There are quite a few roads where doing the speed limit will seriously impede the flow of traffic.
What prompts people to feel like Mitch does is that if everybody is breaking a law constantly, there's effectively a new unwritten law, and the old law becomes an obsolete rule in a little book. People will feel outraged if you arbitrarily enforce the obsolete rule against a handful of people from time to time.
A speed limit needs to be high enough that if someone says "dude, I was just a few klicks over", they get zero sympathy, because what were you doing flirting with the limit in the first place?
Authority isn't given the benefit of the doubt within immigrant communities and Ford knows that.
Ford knows that speed limits matter and that they are set too low. Setting limits below accepted international standards and then enforcing them isn't acceptable among immigrants as it is with Red Tory types.
Alberta did it right IMHO. Every speed camera must be justified and the speed limit must be justified. Authority doesn't get the benefit of the doubt.
I find speed cameras annoying, but this attitude anti-camera justification irks me— is speeding okay or not? If it is not okay to speed, then the cameras are an acceptable part of the solution to achieve that policy goal. If it is okay to speed, then what's the point of having speed limits at all?
But they where moving them around! It was a revenue grab! They moved them out of school zones! Okay? So... don't speed. I don't get why that's not an option.
If speeding is okay, then let's make it official. I'd be okay with that. But if speed limits are staying let's use all the tools they need to maintain public safety. Yes, even if that means getting paying a speeding ticket from time to time.
If speeding is objectively illegal, then the conclusion that moving cameras around is nothing more than a cash grab is an egregious non sequitur. It's just as possible that the city is trying to eliminate speeding everywhere without putting up camera everywhere. It's an open question as to whether the cost of moving them around exceeds the cost of buying enough to go everywhere.
Given that speed limits have never been enforced absolutely, it raises the question of whether the current numbers are really the best limit if they are to be enforced absolutely, as with cameras.
Much has been made of the effects of speed in a collision with a pedestrian, but leaving pedestrians aside, one can easily defend much higher speeds on limited access highways. I believe that speed limits could also be subject to time of day, e.g. city streets between say, 12am and 6am could safely be subject to a much higher limit. Also, even though schools zones have a lower limit, is there a point for that lower limit during classroom hours when there are no kids on the street?
Even with the pedestrian collision argument, red light and speed cameras operating full time could reduce the likelihood of collisions so that a higher than 50 or 60 limit on city streets would be just as safe or safer than what we have now.
Shoehorning camera enforcement into current, unchangeable speed limits is the real dumb idea.
I agree completely with this. In my experience in Ottawa, many of the cameras are in reasonable spots, but some are quite egregious. For example, there is a speed camera on King Edward where the speed limit is 40. This sounds reasonable on the face of it, but the road is 6 lanes across and it is the main highway to cross over into Quebec. The speed limit is artificially low there, and picks up again on the bridge itself (I think the limit is 70, but people routinely are doing 100 on it). Just today, CTV published stats that show that this camera produces the second most tickets in the city (https://www.ctvnews.ca/ottawa/article/ottawas-photo-radar-cameras-caught-27000-speeders-in-august-here-are-the-hot-spots/). It had been the first in the past, but it was narrowly beaten out by another one.
Yes, the road goes through Lowertown where people live, but the solution is to redesign the streets to be safer and promote slower driving. The speed camera incentivizes the opposite, where the city loses if it does the right thing.
This all begs the question why the main highway to Quebec goes through a residential neighbourhood with a speed limit of 40, but that's beyond the pale to talk about.
Was there not complaining for years about the traffic speed coming over the river into Ottawa? Ya 40 is low, should be 50, but still needed.
What's needed isn't a camera though, what's needed is to redesign the road or shift that traffic out of the residential neighbourhood. As long as the City is making bank on tickets, they have no reason to change anything.
But not over Duck Island. Where can new bridges be built today?
The writer's gripes have not been ny experience. Sudbury ran speed tests, identified the worst zones for speeding, and set up cameras in the worst places. They have 40 spots and six cameras so they move them around. They also have evidence that speeds have slowed even after the cameras move, because eventually the camera comes back.
Sometimes is is a bandaid for stupid urban planning, but they are great . Ford is wrong on this.
I live steps away from the infamous Parkside Dr. camera. While I don't like people who willingly and consciously speed, speed limit enforcement with automated cameras lacks all the nuances that a real police officer brings to enforcement with its corresponding discretion.
To wit:
- A driver doing 50 in a 30 zone near a school is objectively not the same as doing 90 on a 70 zone on a grade separated highway with no pedestrians. Yet, as far as I can tell, the punishment is the same.
- Toronto speed cameras have no mechanism for the offender to fight the tickets, like one can with any other ticket, even if the the owner wasn't behind the wheel.
- The fine carries no demerit points, which seriously undermines the safety argument as there is no real long-term consequence for repeat offenders. Someone wealthy enough can just pay the fines without further consequences, also undermining the equality argument.
- The enormous amount of money collected goes into the general city coffers, contributing to bloating the bureaucracy even more.
If safety was truly the issue, they would use all funds from speed cameras, redesign streets with safety in mind and install traffic calming features where appropriate, to eventually make the cameras unnecessary, because the street would - by design - prevent most instances of speeding.
The french went trough this 20 years before us and just see how much of a driving nightmare that country has become, while enriching an already bloated state. Driving on French roads is an exercise in constant fear of missing the next speed camera and get caught even at a few kph over the limit.
A lot of the complaints about speed cameras and photo radar speed traps have always rung false with me. A common criticism is that it's just a cash grab, pointing to the long interval between the offense and receiving a ticket, plus the fact that the ticket doesn't carry the demerit points for drivers that come with one issue by a cop. Both of those issues *could* be addressed with current technology: AI and computer systems could issue tickets instantly via e-mail or text without putting a human (and time lag) in the loop for review. Similarly, facial recognition technology combined with biometric driver's licenses could identify the driver and hit them with demerit points. Speeders who get hit with a ticket issued by a cop might be chastened for a brief period, but inevitably go back to speeding.
Of course, this would probably *increase* the intensity of hatred towards the systems: the problem is not really that people feel the system fails as a deterrent; it's that it's too effective at identifying speeders and issuing fines! Instant notification doesn't change the fact that you have to pay a fine; getting hit with demerit points at the same time just rubs salt in the wound. They're not going to stop speeding - it's just that they feel this tax on their behavior is stacked in the house's favor - they'd rather have the gamble of being able to spot the less frequent manned police speed traps.
Yes, yes and yes!
Whatever the merits of the posted speed limit, if you don’t want a ticket (and demerit points) then just don’t speed!
Doug Ford has a majority government that can write and change laws. If he is troubled by the enforcement of a law then he should just change the law. Making the fines start at 10 or 15 km/h above the limit, for example, is entirely within his power. So is increasing the limit.
Impeding the enforcement of laws is the worst of all options.
Yup. I have said for years that if the goal is really to get people to slow down they would leave them in the places where speed is more of a safety issue, and they would make them readily visible. But when they hide the cameras in unmarked vehicles, move them constantly, set them up in obvious fishing holes, or (as in one publicized case in Edmonton) have 3 of them set up along the southbound lane of the same busy 6 lane each way divided thoroughfare with the result that as least one motorist got 3 tickets in a 15 minute period (the judge threw them out and rapped the city on the knuckles by the way) then we know that despite all mewlings to the contrary, it is really about the money, and not about safety at all. Ford has picked a winning issue on this. And any political opponent who takes the contrary position will be shooting themselves in the foot.
No surprise to see at the end that the author is a political advisor. These guys think every issue begins and ends with "was this smart communications strategy?"
Here I had the impression that The Line was intended to push against that mindset.
As a Line reader, I've generally enjoyed the views shared by political insiders, including those from Mitch. I appreciate the byline notes, too -- I'd rather see it declared where a writer is coming from than have to wade through pretenses of objectivity.
LOL, though, on "these guys think every issue begins and ends with "was this smart communications strategy." So true! :)
We don't have full year stats yet for 2025 in Calgary, obviously, but the Alberta government did away with random speed cams earlier this year, and as of late July 2025, Calgary is on track to experience an 8% increase in traffic incidents this year (as compared with 2024) -- which is completely in line with the 8% increase from 2021 to 2022, and the similar increases from 2022-23 and 2023-24.
...which these stats indicate is that the continued increases in traffic incidents have more to do with population growth than they have to do with speed cameras.
If this is supposed to be a "safety measure", it plainly does not work.
And let's not forget the 30 kph speed limits, speed bumps on every block, four way stops on every corner, unsynchronized traffic lights, delaying green lights until pedestrians have crossed even when there are no pedestrians, etc.
The system is designed for those who don't want to get anywhere.
Exactly Mitch EXACTLY. And if the cops that were supposedly freed up by these electronic tax thieves actually did POLICE work instead of padding their statistics by picking on otherwise law abiding citizens they might get some support but noooo. Let's go after the regular gun owner or the regular small business operator, they are easy targets; they want to be law abiding so they are "safe" to harass. Actual criminals might resist. They might have unregistered firearms. They might use them. (Ask that dad in Markham... oh wait, you can't he's DEAD. Ask his traumatized kids... funny THAT story got dropped fast.) So lets avoid that risk and just go after soft targets or even better show up as the second responders that they are to home invasions looking all spiffy with THEIR guns and armour that you ,John Q Citizen, are not allowed to have or use to save your family. But they look good and tough while telling you to "just cooperate", "Leave your key fobs by the door", thanks Chief. So yeah Doug, go after the cameras, but DO NOT STOP THERE! It's time to go after lazy cops (you think I'm off side, in Waterloo Region the 911 operator will ask if it's SAFE for their officer to respond before despatching them!!! Yes that happened when a range was reporting a suspicious customer and asking for help!) If they can make a victim into a criminal they will do their best. Easy score on the crime stats. After all catching actual criminals is risky.
Interesting, to me, this is not the first go round: I lived in Ontario when 24 hour news radio 680 news was new, and reporting the locations of moving speed cameras. This was at least 20 years ago and I'm pretty sure someone got elected promising to kill them. They were killed.
Several years ago, I heard a "progressive" councillor in my city, a proponent of 30 klom limits on EVERY street, say, "well, we should just MAKE them do it!", when told compliance will be a problem.
"Progressive" will remain in "" for some time because of this lack of interest, understanding, or acceptance of human behaviour, and/or decision-making. Like the Democrats in the U.S., when they're turfed, they remain confused for some time, until someone reminds them about democracy. "Progressive" egos, so faithful, so committed to their orthodoxy, never understand they lead by permission. They're convinced they lead by moral right.
I say fuck em for that, (and anyone who takes that stand.)
The technology is sound but the municipalities overestimated how much goodwill they had in their communities to play fast and loose with enforcement and revenue.
Ontario has notoriously low speed limits when compared to neighboring jurisdictions. It was okay as long as the Ontario game of being fuzzy with enforcement was played. (There must be some sort of cultural aspect to this). But hard enforcement of low speed limits in marginal safety areas is a bit much for today's Ontario. Immigration has changed Ontario greatly and immigrants tend to come from communities where authority isn't given the benefit of the doubt.
The problem ultimately is that there aren't enough bootlickers, authority deferring folks, hard core social conservatives or "at least it keeps my taxes down" types in Ontario. Ford knows that.
Does anyone know the cost of cancelling out of the contracts the municipalities have with the camera technology suppliers? Hard to imagine anyone but the provincial taxpayer will be footing the bill for this given the arbitrary and hard-line approach. This on top of paying three of the largest beer companies in the world $250M so we could move beer into the corner store one year early. Does anyone care?