Sure feels like prohibition in here.
This is Mayor Bloomberg. He has been a very big proponent of government controlling every action that he believes might be harmful to you. The article mentions his anti smoking, salt and sugary beverages campaigns but what it does not mention is how he has wielded his power to remove musicians from parts of central park to protect "quiet places" that have had musicians playing in them for over 50 years in order to protect you from unwanted and potentially damaging noises. Nor did it mention the removal of artists and vendors from various other parks to promote his agenda of putting a green market in every park.
Personally I cannot wait for him to get out of office, just wish we had a candidate willing to run to replace him that I could support.
I guess it's not a good thing for the government to force people to cut down on such things, but it is true that excessive drinking is bad for health.
On the other hand, moral suasion isn't going to work all that well (if it does at all)...so it's quite a dilemma.
Sure worked 100 years ago right?
Prohibition VS Campaigning
The former will be met with public disapproval. The latter isn't going to pineappleing work.
Wait, hes trying to Veto all form of Alcohol Selling/Buying or just limit it?
He is trying to find ways to limit the sale of it and as of right now (based on my reading of the article) he is hoping to do it by limiting the number of establishments that can sell it. Less bars/clubs and bodegas etc. will be allowed to sell alcohol and hence will never open if he has his way. Im sure it wont effect any type of establishment that his billionaire friends frequent though only the ones you do.
how do you even vote them to get their asses in the office?
Heh I remember that debacle. He tried to pass that extension fast without having the public vote and debate on it first. And in fact, I do recall that most NYCers did not like the fact that Bloomberg pulled off this stunt.
Yet, the same amount of NYCers say that if they had a choice to vote for mayor again, they'd vote for Bloomberg again anyway, because most of the time everyone likes him. xd
Well he's doing a pretty good job in spite of his ego.
I've always been against a "nanny state" myself.
But it's funny how people go insane over plans to restrict alcohol use. Alcohol is not restricted near as much as tobacco-products, even though alcohol usage has way bigger costs to society. Shouldn't law focus on the effect of an product on third party, not on how healthy it is for the person themself? Smoking may be more risky when it comes to the health of the smoker, but not when we talk about outsiders. Alcohol is way more harmful for other people and I don't mean health here. rapes, murders, molesting, traffic accidents, crimes... etc etc Many of the deaths caused by alcohol are -unlike in smoking- premature. The difference between smoking and drinking is that ethanol is a psychoactive drug.
The attitude on drinking, especially underage drinking is more approbative. Finnish study found that 1/3 of adults in Finland would actually accept teens drinking alcohol. Teenagers don't know how to drink moderately. Most of the time they will get drunk. Don't deny it, the stats are with me on this. Teenage drinking will also greatly increase chances of developing alcoholism or other problems in adulthood.
I really think that alcohol industry (just like Tobacco industry of course) is trying to defend their rights and trying to take down all laws that would affect their business. It's also harder for politicians, because most of the people drink alcohol, while smokers are clearly in the minority.
You only recognize the negative impact alcohol has on society, and there's a lot but let's apply common sense to your biased rant.
435,000 vs 85,000, and that's alcohol related, cigerettes are just from smoking
Cigerettes are poison, alcohol has benefits to you in terms of health, in moderation of course. I would like to also bring up the point of why it's okay for the government to send me to war at the age of 18, yet I can't drink until 21, while britain is doing fine drinking age at 16. There's some truth to what happens if something is legal there's less risk of moderation problems. You don't have to over indulge because you don't know when that oppurtunity comes again, you can drink whenever you want. Blaming a substance that does have benefits on an individuals personal responsibility is exactly why your belief of "reason" isn't common sense in intellectuals eyes.
Apart from traffic accidents, do you have any data to back up your hypothesis?
But you know, nicotine IS a psychoactive drug.
|Slip's Music Database (GMS v177: The Afterlands)||Maplestory "High Five" Private Showcase||v.177 â€“ Strange Stories Update Preview|
|[Updated] v.177 â€“ Strange Stories Patch Notes||[KMS]Inkwell Diary # 72 - Night Walker skill preview||Rules and Regulations [UPDATED: 2014-09-15]|
|NXPatcher - Create your own pre-patcher & list of Maple FTPs||Maple Memo: A Better Maple Update||[Rant] This game's practically dead in terms of actual content.|
|Is NexonNA trying to kill Reboot World?||Onyx Ring Discussion||Beast Tamer discussion thread|
|RED update thoughts and feedback||Maplestory 2, Aanyeong||[CMS] Luminous Light/Dark system converted back to KMS version|