dagblog - Comments for "Dr. WHO Says No Alcohol For You"

The booze is fine, it's your

quinn esq — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:27:39 +0000

In reply to 1) The cool whip thing was a

The booze is fine, it's your freedom I hate.

Point well taken, but I think

Larry Jankens — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:27:16 +0000

In reply to Dude. What gives? You're now

Point well taken, but I think the WHO should allocate its resources to attack issues that are more pressing and leave it up to individual govs to determine what they want to do with drinking - which in my view is not much.

But then again, I'm of the persuasion that all drugs should be legal everywhere.

1) The cool whip thing was a

Larry Jankens — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:22:53 +0000

In reply to You, DF? Sure. You should get

1) The cool whip thing was a dare and I totally won $50 bucks for doing it.

2) You can open a place that effectively kills people and if people want to go there and kill themselves that should be their choice.

3) I appreciate this discussion in so much as it has people admitting they like booze and freedom.

Dude. What gives? You're now

quinn esq — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:48:55 +0000

In reply to I guess I'm a little touchy

Dude. What gives? You're now talking about the WHO in black helicopter terms. A "world wide organization BENT on making sure..." etc. And the comparisons to the Patriot Act and 9/11? WTF is going on over here at DorgBog? Oprah's a Killer and WHO are out to git us? Booze. Not sure if you've noticed, but there are enormous amounts spent every year to encourage people to drink. And little old ladies at churches along with occasional public service announcements pushing the other way. A bit of straight talk from the global body tasked with protecting our HEALTH is probably not way outside their mandate. I GET that you dislike of the maniacs who pushed the anti-smoking thing. I was a smoker, and had to watch otherwise rational people go apeshit. But. Smoking was, and is, bad for me, and for others. As for booze, well, my argument about smoking always was that booze is worse. Which it was, and IS. But how much do people know about booze? Shit, most don't even know it's a carcinogen. They know 1/10th of what they know about smoking. I'm not against drinking, or getting drunk, or drunken brawling. I used to do lots of all three. But would I tax it more, restrict it more, run PR against it more, and clamp the ass off its more irresponsible usages? Damn straight. And if you don't like it, c'mon over here and I'll puke on you, throw a few wild haymakers at you, then back over you in my car before emptying your wallet to help pay for my fetal alcohol-damaged kid.

You, DF? Sure. You should get

quinn esq — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:36:46 +0000

In reply to Let me pose a conundrum to

You, DF? Sure. You should get to make that decision. But people like Genghis? NFW. Or Larry? Yeah right. The last decision that dude got right was spraying Cool Whip on his arse to "liven up" that party at his place.

FYI, you're right that CA

DF — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:22:00 +0000

In reply to Bars have tons of regulations

FYI, you're right that CA exempts owner-operated bars, the thinking being that they aren't endangering any employees with their policy decisions.

FWIW, even when I was a pack-a-day smoker I never smoked indoors.

Let me pose a conundrum to

DF — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:15:03 +0000

In reply to My primary concern is similar

Let me pose a conundrum to you. What if I want to open a BBQ joint? Except it's an indoor charcoal BBQ joint. It's called Freedom-Q.

Now, no one is compelled to patronize my establishment. Of course, they will because they love freedom, tri-tip and being indoors with copious amounts of carbon monoxide.

Should I be allowed to do this? Should I, as a proprieter, be able to make this business decision?

Bars have tons of regulations

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:39:00 +0000

In reply to My primary concern is similar

Bars have tons of regulations that constrain bar owner's "freedom," from hygiene standards to noise limits to employment restrictions to the number of tables and chairs they can have. Due to a 1926 cabaret law, you can't dance in NYC bars. So a bar owner's freedom of choice in this case does not seem particularly important to me. Should a bar owner without employees be allowed to permit smoking in their bars? Probably. California offers that exemption, I think. But who really cares? You open a bar, you deal with bureaucratic regulations. That's the game.

FYI, I lived in San Francisco when the smoking ban was enacted there and in NYC when it was enacted there. In each case, before the ban, there were many protests and gripes. After the ban, most people liked it--the bars no longer reeked. Personally, as a casual bar smoker, I enjoyed the excuse to go outside and mingle with smokers. And it became a heck of lot easier to get my non-smoking friends out to bars, thereby facilitating drinking, which is more fun than smoking. And of course, non-smoking bartenders liked it because it meant that they were less likely to get cancer. Many winners, few losers; I can give up the freedom to smoke in a bar for that.

Bah, I was too drunk to find

Nebton — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:21:33 +0000

In reply to 1) Raise taxes on booze 2)

Bah, I was too drunk to find them.

By the way, I like the conditional "if" in your last sentence.

My primary concern is similar

Larry Jankens — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:11:55 +0000

In reply to I too love me some alcohol,

My primary concern is similar to the smoking bans that have swept the nation. Now it is illegal for a bar owner to make their own decision about whether or not they want to allow smoking. Shouldn't that be the bar owners decision?

We agree that lines must be drawn and that to certain degree the WHO's efforts are noble, but unbridled restriction (there's an oxymoron for ya), which is the tone of the anti-smoking movement, should not be adopted toward drinking.