We hold this truth to be self-evident: government must provide equal treatment for all beers.

As with most self-evident truths, some context may be helpful. First, this is not to suggest an equivalence between human equality and beer equality – the first is an absolute necessity and the other is merely a matter of common sense. Second, this is not to suggest that all beer tastes equally good, but rather that all beer must be equal before the law regardless of taste.

With all of that said, the foundational point remains: government must provide equal treatment for all beers. Unfortunately, Saskatchewan fails to uphold beer equality. The result is tragic (or at least distasteful): warm beer. (Photo: James Glover/Foter/CC BY-NC-SA)

How many of us have witnessed this (minor) injustice and simply kept walking? In government liquor stores and private venders, only premium-priced beers such as Coors Banquet and Moosehead are deemed worthy of chilling, while the blue collar masses of Pilsner and Budweiser are left languishing in oppressive room temperatures. Off-sales have desegregated fridges with all manner of beers on ice, but the government forces them to jack up the price.

Let’s leave aside for a moment the affront this represents to the self-evident truth of beer equality. How can the government give Corona a place among the privileged in the fridges of public liquor stores while Saskatchewan’s own standout Great Western Pilsner is barred from coming into the cold? Will any Saskatchewan leader stand up and defend this (somewhat) grave injustice? To do so would surely provoke public outrage (or amused annoyance).

How is it possible, that in 2015, there are still places in Saskatchewan where some beer is not welcomed to a nice spot in the cooler?

Is it a safety issue? While coolness is certainly associated with the enjoyment of beer, it would be hard to find scientific evidence drawing a link between beer temperature and health outcomes.

Is it a taxation issue? If there is one thing with which government can be trusted, it is the time proven ability to collect taxes regardless of extraneous factors such as temperature.

What then is the issue? It’s simply market protectionism. Like children in a sandbox, the government has sent public liquor stores, private venders and off-sales to different corners of the market. Public liquor stores and private venders can offer lower prices, but they’re forced to sell warm beer. Off-sales can chill any beer they want, but they have to sell at higher prices. And so there is an uneasy peace in the sandbox of beer sales in Saskatchewan.

Who bears the cost of this beer-selling peace? The answer is: consumers.

Now, the Saskatchewan government has taken some important steps to improve liquor retailing. Off-sale permits are no longer restricted to hotels and brew pubs. There are a few private stores. It’s possible to have a glass of wine at a movie. And golfers will be happy that the government no longer imposes a limit of one beverage cart per nine holes.

However, too much of the conversation about alcohol policy still revolves around carefully balancing the interests of industry players. Consumers are too often relegated to second place. This warm-beer tyranny isn’t enshrined in legislation or even regulation, it’s merely a policy and it could be changed with a mere nod from the government.

Please, for the love of competition and cold beer, let’s have beer equality.