[thinkharder]

As someone who lives in a state with state-run liquor, this is the exact opposite of how it actually plays out. Prices are anywhere from 30-100+% more than across the border in a state without a state-run liquor policy. Because the government has a monopoly there is no competition to drive prices lower and since the government monopoly gets to keep the profit there is no incentive for them to lower prices. Furthermore, a big part of the reason that liquor is state-run where it is, with few, scattered stores that close at 7:00 PM and on Sunday and holidays, is to encourage reduced alcohol consumption. Raising prices is an effective mechanism for that too.

I think if you set up these kind of government-run dispensaries, you have to mandate that their purpose is ensuring product and supply chain quality (not just making fat bags of cash), and that revenue above COGS has to be restricted to what it costs to run the program and maybe a small emergency/maintenance fund. Otherwise the natural incentive that apply to any monopoly encourage them to raise prices to the max the market will bear and rent-seek. It's civically conscientious to think that the government would be advocating for the people by working to proved the lowest possible prices, but that isn't how any government-run 'vices' dispensary program I've ever seen plays out IRL.

[cortesoft]

I think costing more and making the government more money are intended features of this system, not side-effects.

'vice' dispensaries are not meant to provide the best service to their customers. They are meant to fill a need well enough to prevent black market competitors, while at the same time making the vice inconvenient enough to discourage its use as much as possible. At the same time, they want to maximize revenue for the government.

Whether this is good or bad is up for debate, but it isn't something they are accidentally doing. When it comes to vices like alcohol or drugs, 'advocating for the people' is not a simple 'provide people what they want' equation - people are wanting something that is bad for them, so do we give it to them as cheaply as possible, satisfying their want, or do we make it more difficult, to satisfy what society wants as a whole?

[saenns]

is taxation not a simpler and more direct way to achieve higher prices without granting practically irreversible monopoly rights?

[jpetso]

Simpler in terms of not handling retail operations directly. More complicated as now you have to employ an army of regulators to make sure the regulations aren't being skirted in favor of higher sales numbers.

[criddell]

> advocating for the people by working to proved the lowest possible prices

Lowest possible prices for the government purchasers, not for the citizens. For alcohol at least, there are a lot of externalities associated with consumption and so it makes sense for the government to try to price the product with that in mind. In a place like Ontario where the government also runs the health care system, it makes even more sense.