No smoking, transfats on the ropes, and now... DOWN WITH BOOZE

[Big Red Rick]

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local...137097223.html

Why do these people want to do away with all the FUN??? And these aren't religious nutjobs doing it. These are do-gooder activist doctors trying to quash the revelry.

[AnchorageHusker]

I think all they just said was they were trying to limit sales of alcohol, I don't see them attempting to pass legislation or anything. Let them have their social causes, in all honesty many of us could probably do to have a couple fewer drinks.

[huskerborn]

from the article..

An organization affiliated with the New York City Health Department is hoping to limit alcohol sales in the city.
The Fund For Public Health in New York has issued a request for proposals from organizations that would work to reduce the density of bars and corner stores selling alcohol.
Any winning organizations would get federal funds. They'd also work toward goals including increasing access to healthy food and decreasing the consumption of unhealthy food.

The goal is to tell you what you can and can't eat... you shouldn't have a problem with that because it is for the best.

[DIHRDHusker]

Wow, Big Brother. "you can't fix stupid!"

[RedBlack&Blue]

How about this instead: Add alcohol to Starbucks. Now that'd make for some wicked lattes!

[Big Red Rick]

I think all they just said was they were trying to limit sales of alcohol, I don't see them attempting to pass legislation or anything. Let them have their social causes, in all honesty many of us could probably do to have a couple fewer drinks.

But who is to decide how much we can or cannot consume of a legal product? WE are! We should determine if we should consume fewer drinks. I'm just saying, people don't notice when their behaviors are eroded or gently nudged a different direction, as this is attempting to do. We DO notice when it is changed all at once.

Did anyone see/read "1984"? Or "The Island"?

[RedPhoenix]

I love that the guys on the right who come here complaining about the government outlawing things that "are bad for you" are the same ones, for the most part, who have a problem with legalizing drugs and the like!

The irony is too much.

[KleinTxHusker]

Alcohol is far worse for peoples health than trans-fats.

The health benefits are limited to one serving per day, and anything more is worse than zero servings. And that is one serving per day not seven on Friday night and zero the other six days of the week. Alleged Red Wine benefits do not come from the alcohol...

Then throw in contributions to accidents and violence...

Hmmm... anyone think Carrie Nation had a point?

[Big Red Rick]

I love that the guys on the right who come here complaining about the government outlawing things that "are bad for you" are the same ones, for the most part, who have a problem with legalizing drugs and the like!

The irony is too much.

Not to mention the guys who come in to a thread and not really contribute anything...

[Husker Poyer]

Too bad this was instituted last night...then I wouldn't be quite so hungover....

[Huskerwirejay]

The goal is to tell you what you can and can't eat...

Really? Link? [of course not...because it just isn't true]

What is the impact of having 2 liquor stores on a corner instead of 3? Do you honestly believe that will PREVENT anyone who wants access to booze form buying some?

But who is to decide how much we can or cannot consume of a legal product? WE are! We should determine if we should consume fewer drinks.

Let's assume for a second that the topic is coffee and not booze. If their are 5 Starbucks and 3 Caribou Coffee shops within walking distance to you home, will you coffee consumption go up if Caribou opens a 4th shop? Will it go down if Caribou closes 1 of their 3 shops? How does the number of coffee shops prevent you from deciding how much you can or cannot consume?

[RedPhoenix]

Not to mention the guys who come in to a thread and not really contribute anything...

My contribution is to point out the laughable hypocrisy of those who feign righteous indignation over this. It is an awesome contribution that you are thankful for.

[Big Red Rick]

Really? Link? [of course not...because it just isn't true]

What is the impact of having 2 liquor stores on a corner instead of 3? Do you honestly believe that will PREVENT anyone who wants access to booze form buying some?




Let's assume for a second that the topic is coffee and not booze. If their are 5 Starbucks and 3 Caribou Coffee shops within walking distance to you home, will you coffee consumption go up if Caribou opens a 4th shop? Will it go down if Caribou closes 1 of their 3 shops? How does the number of coffee shops prevent you from deciding how much you can or cannot consume?

It might go up, depending how close that new Caribou is to my house. If that new one is closer, I'd be more likely to go to that one more often. Continuing to assume, that new cafe is set up next to my house, not just walking distance but SPITTING distance. I'd be more likely to get coffee everyday if all I have to do is step off my porch and into the shop next door, regardless of how many are within walking distance.

[Husker Poyer]

Why is it so loud and bright in here?

[ColoREDo]

Why is it so loud and bright in here?

Its always loud in here and intermittently bright.

[Huskers57]

Its always loud in here and intermittently bright.

poyer is hungover...remember???

[Husker Poyer]

poyer is hungover...remember???

STOP YELLING

[Huskers57]

STOP YELLING

shhh.

[Ogahusker]

I love that the guys on the right who come here complaining about the government outlawing things that "are bad for you" are the same ones, for the most part, who have a problem with legalizing drugs and the like!

The irony is too much.

Actually, I really wanted to debate you on this, but you know what? I really can't. While I hate the idea of more government and really hate the idea of more government involvement in our day to day lives, there comes a time when you break ranks with your hard core beliefs.

I was instumental in getting pop and candy machines out of recreation centers and took a lot of heat for it. I wasn't stopping any kid from walking a block to buy it elsewhere, but in my professional position where I promote fitness, I would not provide something that contradicted my practice both professionally and personally.

That said, I can see why some groups strive for better health, safety, etc. I understand the intention. On the other hand, I do not agree with tax dollars paying for any of it. If the Feds are paying for some system (as a reward program) that limits free enterprise, that's wrong IMO.

If a City entity wants to change how they issue building permits and liquor licenses (which ultimately is approved by the state I believe), let them try. That process alone weeds permit seekers out. And we have groups of people that show up to Council meetings all the time to protest liquor licenses. It rarely has an effect, but the process is there. It looks like this article is looking for citizen groups to do just that....limit the number of liquor establishments. Again, let them try, BUT the idea they will reward these groups with Federal money is Bs.

It's a slippery slope. Sometimes a very fine line between what we expect our government to do and stay out of. Don't tell me what I can eat or drink, but please mandate getting asbestos out of my kids schools.

[Huskerwirejay]

Actually, I really wanted to debate you on this, but you know what? I really can't. While I hate the idea of more government and really hate the idea of more government involvement in our day to day lives, there comes a time when you break ranks with your hard core beliefs.

I was instumental in getting pop and candy machines out of recreation centers and took a lot of heat for it. I wasn't stopping any kid from walking a block to buy it elsewhere, but in my professional position where I promote fitness, I would not provide something that contradicted my practice both professionally and personally.

That said, I can see why some groups strive for better health, safety, etc. I understand the intention. On the other hand, I do not agree with tax dollars paying for any of it. If the Feds are paying for some system (as a reward program) that limits free enterprise, that's wrong IMO.

If a City entity wants to change how they issue building permits and liquor licenses (which ultimately is approved by the state I believe), let them try. That process alone weeds permit seekers out. And we have groups of people that show up to Council meetings all the time to protest liquor licenses. It rarely has an effect, but the process is there. It looks like this article is looking for citizen groups to do just that....limit the number of liquor establishments. Again, let them try, BUT the idea they will reward these groups with Federal money is Bs.

It's a slippery slope. Sometimes a very fine line between what we expect our government to do and stay out of. Don't tell me what I can eat or drink, but please mandate getting asbestos out of my kids schools.

Goods stuff Oga.

Currently, the Government thinks it is important to provide land line phone service to rural areas where such services are not economically viable. For more than 50 years we have been paying a tax on our phone bill to underwrite telephone service in Cherry Co, NE. The idea is that our nation benefits from everyone having the same access to basic phone service. The same is true for rural health care. I don't object to making healthy food choices accessible to all.