Same as everything, the gov we elect in our broken democracy.
All markets are regulated to a certain extent because we have labour laws. True free markets with no regulation would be nice but Smith's ideal of competition never fully panned out which is why the gov sets basic regulations.
Alcohol is regulated but companies are still free to compete within those bounds. While overly regulated in some ways because of the stigma (which is to be expected) companies still have the ability to compete within those regulations. Arguable they've created a lot more then most have expected by not making the industry accessible to those with a criminal past, allowing easy transfer of genetics into the nee system, allowing outdoor growing which has a much lower production overhead cost, etc.
I'm not interested in arguing semantics; so let me rephrase that. In the new highly regulated gov system of production & distribution we have the choice to buy from any competitor of the quickly growing number (LP's have double in the last year before they introduced the new, less restrictive & more accessible heavy regulations) or we can choose to grow our own because the elected gov insisted on removing the amendment that would have allowed provinces to supercede federal law. So we have the same "freedom" as we do in most markets, which are regulated to a greater or lesser market.
If you choose to see that as living under government oppression that's your choice. Everything is in context, unless you live isolated & off the grid your life is regulated to a greater or lesser extent. We have to follow rules of the road, criminal law, pay taxes. I'm fine with that as I've yet to see a better way of organising people on the scale that we have to. It doesn't mean I agree with it, that's why we've got a 5 acre plot in an unorganised township where an anarchist community is growing as the long term plan. I still understand that it only works on a small scale at this point because of human nature & competition/greed.
When companies try to avoid those regulations we usually find human rights abuses. Like the clothing industry that's mostly offshore in countries with poor regulations, like Bangladesh. That's why I understand regulation as a necessary evil at this point. I'd love to be proven wrong though. Give me some examples of a free market where production/distribution doesn't have some regulation involved.
Criminal law? Yes, many (most?) statutory laws and regulations are criminal, in that they are malum prohibitum rather than actual sources of seeking and delivering justice.
Necessary evil? A term filled with rationalization.
The fact that regulation is prevalent, isn't the same thing as saying it's necessary. In most instances regulation is used as a form of protectionism to the benefit of legally favored people and the detriment of others, those who suffer under the loss burden of what might have been due to some government erected barrier or another.
A free market tends to be regulated by consumer freedom of choice, rather than arbitrary self serving interventions from a coercive third party, ie Government. The fact that there are very few real free markets doesn't evidence that they are inefficient or wrong, it really only points out that they are DISALLOWED, by government, which is a different thing than inefficient or whether they are morally sound or just.
Anyway, not trying to harsh on your commentary or thoughts. I just don't think many people understand what a real free market is or isn't and they often erroneously default to the idea that government omnipresence and a free market can exist in the same circumstance. They can't, since they are concepts with opposing meanings.
Plant limits, sales restrictions, etc. by government are an example of an "anti free market" , not examples of a free market.
The fact that you have a choice to purchase alcohol from a number of suppliers within a structured regulated, taxed and legislatively protected market. is a sort of false dichotomy and doesn't mean we should call it a free market thing.