Letter: For one ounce of amaretto

Idea of buying an extra 39 ounces of liqueur that I will never consume seems just a little wasteful

For one ounce of amaretto

I found an old recipe from my days in cooking school for pork tenderloin with almond stuffing that I remember was excellent, so I set about making it. I found every ingredient at our local grocery store except (naturally) the amaretto required to make the sauce. When I walked across the parking lot to the liquor store I discovered that, for the one ounce I needed, I had to buy a large bottle costing $40.

I should point out that I am a nondrinker. The idea of buying an extra 39 ounces of liqueur that I will never consume seems just a little wasteful, so I went to Jakes at the Lake to see if I could buy a single ounce from them, only to be told that because of government regulations they could not sell me any alcohol unless I consumed it on the premises.

How is it that in a time when we have finally legalized marijuana and provide free needles to the idiots who use fentanyl it is still not permissible to buy a single ounce of liqueur for home cooking? As a society we have accepted recreational drug use, yet we are still following an antiquated liquor control policy written by evangelical prohibitionists when Carrie Nation was still wrecking saloons! I hate to steal Joe Sawchuk’s line, but this is truly unbelievable.

I understand that the solicitor general has many important issues to deal with. It must be terribly hard to concentrate with all the protesters honking their horns, but perhaps Mr. Farnsworth might spare a moment to delegate one of his many assistants to tweak the relevant legislation enough to allow one free born British Columbian to sell another a single ounce of alcohol for the purpose of home cooking.

David Lowther

Mesachie Lake