Posted on 01/30/2012 2:24:58 PM PST by 92nina
Across the country the Center for Disease Control (CDC) has been spending millions of ‘Stimulus’ dollars running campaigns and ads attacking tobacco and sugar-sweetened beverages like soda. Health police have also waged overt war on alcoholic beverages. After taxing beverages to no end Big Brother has turned more frequently to regulating away individual choice.
Nowhere is the Nanny State more alive and well than in the Big Apple. Under the guise of public health, Mayor Bloomberg is planning a draconian assault on alcoholic beverages, plotting to close a number of drinking establishments and restrict alcohol advertising throughout the city. Initial outcry from consumers as well as local businesses has caused the Mayor’s office to back pedal. However, this newest offensive against individual choice has stemmed from a particularly peculiar thesis; rather than focus on responsible drinking practices of New York denizens, the city hopes to punish them in an attempt to send a message to patrons who drink more regularly.
This social engineering goes much deeper than simply throwing ideas around as the Mayor’s office has portrayed. NYC’s Health Commissioner happens to be Dr. Tom Farley, co-author of ‘Prescriptions for a Healthy Nation’ which argues that Prohibition was a success because public health improved and deaths related to alcohol consumption were reduced by half.
Thus, officials have taken another tactic in promoting Prohibition for the 21st century. The New York policy relies on a concept of ‘curve shifting.’ The theory is that targeting the middle group of consumers (those of us that drink occasionally), instead of the outliers who may exhibit more reckless behavior, aims regulation towards the largest number of individuals. With the utilitarian concept of achieving the greatest impact on the greatest number, NYC’s Health Commissioner believes this will lead to fewer heavy drinkers. According to this fairytale, slashing the number of bars, liquor stores, and eliminating advertising targeting casual drinkers, will decrease the number of drinkers who over-imbibe.
It is clear that this is simply another assault on consumer freedoms from elite politicians, and along with another regulation comes fewer jobs and oftentimes more taxation. Mayor Bloomberg might be concerned about the health of Nanny York’s residents, but with the unemployment rate at 9.0 percent, it is the Big Apple’s economy that is on life support.
Take this article and others I found to the fight to the Libs on their own turf; put the Left on the defensive at Digg and at Reddit and in Delicious and Delicious
They love to control what we want to put into our bodies, but then whine about “keeping our hands off their bodies”....
How about keeping their hands off of our food and drink for starters and then keeping their hands off our wallets.
Far less draconian than the laws against the less addictive and less deadly drug marijuana. Nobody who supports those laws has any beef coming when the same (il)logic is applied to their drug of choice.
The “responsible” thing is to not drink.
Right on.
How we doin’ on that ‘war on drugs’ thing ?
How much longer before we start lining up these politicians and shooting them ?
Is it the proper function of government to enforce that level of responsibility?
“Is it the proper function of government to enforce that level of responsibility?”
In an ideal society and perfect world the answer would be “no”.
But we don’t live in an ideal perfect world where everyone always does what is right, and never does harm to others because of their irresponsible choices.
That’s why we have laws to enforce a “level of responsibility” on the highway when driving a vehicle.
Even so, innocent people still die everyday, no fault of their own, because others made irresponsible choices.
Should that not have redress?
Is it the proper function of government to enforce that level of responsibility?
In an ideal society and perfect world the answer would be “no”.
But we don’t live in an ideal perfect world where everyone always does what is right, and never does harm to others because of their irresponsible choices.
That’s why we have laws to enforce a “level of responsibility” on the highway when driving a vehicle.
I didn't ask, "Is it the proper function of government to enforce SOME level of responsibility?" Clearly the answer to that question is yes - and I agree that the properly enforced level of responsibility includes not endangering others by driving impaired.
What I asked was, "Is it the proper function of government to enforce THAT level of responsibility [that is, not drinking]?" Your argument doesn't support a "yes" answer to the question I asked.
Even so, innocent people still die everyday, no fault of their own, because others made irresponsible choices.
Should that not have redress?
Of course - but banning ALL drinking because SOME drinkers harm others goes well beyond redress.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.