Nanny State

Nanny Bloomberg Targets Alcohol

|

The New York Post reports that the Bloomberg administration, as part of its nanny city-state agenda, wants to make it harder for New Yorkers to get a drink. The city's Health Department is requesting proposals for initiatives aimed at "reducing alcohol retail outlet (e.g. bar, corner store) density and illegal alcohol." The projects would be funded partly by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which allocates grant money for community "transformation." The department declined to specify what the anti-alcohol initiatives might include, but it said the effort is "in line with our ongoing strategies of promoting healthy eating and physical activity and discouraging tobacco, excessive alcohol use and consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages."

Advertisement

NEXT: L.A. Mayor Villaraigosa: Kill Redevelopment Agency Dead

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. For a second there I was like, “who’s Nancy Bloomberg?”

    1. That is exactly how I read it. Then I saw your post, and I still misread it, and thought Jacob was calling the mayor a nancy. Which I was fine with.

    2. I read it that way at least twice, and wondered that once.

  2. Yeah lets kill the bar and restaurant scene in New York and end any reason ever to go there again.

    1. On behalf of my bars and restaurants, we are all in favor of Bloomberg making it harder to get a drink in NYC! Where can we contribute to his re-election?

      1. I’m sure he only wants to make it harder for THOSE PEOPLE, not people like him.

  3. And MNG, you want to explain how there is so much difference between the SOCONs and the nanny state liberals? If Bloomburg gets his way it will be easier to have a drink in Tulsa than it will be in New York City.

    1. He can’t.

    2. Socons think you shouldn’t smoke or drink or watch porn or do drugs because it kills your soul and harms the church.

      Liberals think you shouldn’t smoke or drink or watch porn or do drugs because it kills your body and harms the government.

      Big difference.

      1. except,

        Socons: Body Is a Temple

        Liberals: those influences adversely affect ones decisions. like who to vote for. or how to spend one’s money.

        Vanishingly-Small difference.

      2. And coming soon: “Because it drives up health care costs that we all pay for.”

        1. Conservatives engage in that one too. My mother’s main argument against drug legalization is that we will have to pay for drug addicts’ health care. She opposes government health care just as much as I do but believing that the government isn’t going to get out of the way (probably right) doesn’t want to increase the burden on the tax payers. The fact that we will and already are paying for it under prohibition doesn’t register.

          1. personally, i think we would be a lot better off if we offered “get out of jail free cards” for people who wanted to do meth, etc. with the stipulation that they have to get a norplant and can’t get it removed until they are clean

            iow- fuck up your life? sure, knock yourself out

            just don’t bring a bunch of puppies into existence while you do so

            1. Sounds like a good plan.

            2. I approve of this message.

              1. a propos that, margie, there was a person/company in cali years ago iirc that offered women a flat fee to get a hysterectomy.

            3. 3 generations of methheads is enough?

      3. it gets even worse when you look at stuff like smokeless cigarettes.

        libs claimed for years that smoking bans were JUST about health – of bystanders. and yet, now, we have cigarettes that demonstrably offer ZERO risk to any people near the smoker and yet they still have pushed to ban them etc. in bars, etc. … for the children of course

        it’s not about health. it’s about control. just like with gunz

        1. With tobacco it’s all about the money, too.

          1. Which money, the billions of tax money raised every year from tobacco sales, or the money spent on healthcare for smokers?

            I have never seen any real numbers comparing those two figures.

            1. The net net number on lifetime healthcare for smokers is probably equal or lower than that for non-smokers.

              So you don’t hear about it.

              1. actually,iirc there was a study a few years back that showed that smokers were a net BENEFIT costwise. iow, they tended to die young enough that they saved society money. even though there were often healthcare costs associated, those were outweighed by other cost savings.

                iow, cigarette smoking (and abortion) net wins, fiscally speaking

                1. Maybe we should be handing out free cigarettes to cut down on health care costs. And lawn darts.

                  cigarette smoking (and abortion) net wins, fiscally speaking

                  whoa whoa whoa. Non-aborted persons contribute more to society than aborted persons.

                  1. not according to the study, which was of course called RACIST

                    iow, the people aborted tended to come from demographics that were more likely to be a drain, etc. based on class, etc.

              2. The net net number on lifetime healthcare for smokers is probably equal or lower than that for non-smokers.

                Yeah, but that’s probably an artifact of Social Security and modern medical tech which greatly contributes to the expense of EOL.

                Back in the 20s, it probably was a net drain on resources because of potentially productive workers dying young, getting sick more often, etc.

        2. That is why I don’t get how libertarians don’t despise liberals more. At least socons will TELL YOU they think the “Community” has a right to protect/extol certain moral virtues (and I think they have an argument that societies have almost always done this in some way or another.)

          The liberals want you to think it’s one way, when it’s another. Again, they are deceivers and that is one of the things I cannot stand about them.

      4. SoCons: You need to live like the Bible tells us to, because God knows what’s best, you have an obligation to honor God with your body and mind, and if you don’t, you’ll go to Hell.

        Liberals: You need to live like I tell you to, because I’m smarter than you and know what’s best for you, and if you don’t, you’ll be wasted, fat, ugly, and politically-incorrect. You have an obligation to purify your mind and body because even though I wouldn’t be caught dead talking to you or even piss on you if you were on fire, I crusade for your rights to free education, healthcare, and pensions.

        Nanny-state RINOs: It’s for the children. Won’t you think of the children? Somebody needs to think of the children.

    3. Herp Derp Bloomberg is a Republican herpity derp.

    4. Herp Derp Bloomberg is a Republican herpity derp.

      1. I keep reading this “herp derp” here; is it supposed to represent belching sounds?

  4. The projects would be funded partly by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which allocates grant money for community “transformation.”

    *sound of repeated head-desk collision*

  5. The city’s Health Department is requesting proposals for initiatives aimed at “reducing alcohol retail outlet (e.g. bar, corner store) density and illegal alcohol.”

    They do understand that these two goals are mutually exclusive, yes?

    1. No, they don’t. Jeez, which part of “bureaucrat” do you not understand?

    2. What I wonder: is there any evidence at all that “alcohol retail outlet density” cuts consumption? Do drinkers think “Damn, the nearest liquor store is now two blocks away! I’d better cut down”?

      1. I’m pretty sure that “I’d better stock up” is more likely to go through the head of anyone who drinks enough to “need” the State to intercede for their health.

      2. Seems like it woudl just improve business for the ones that don’t get shut down.

        I’d bet that the liquor stores that get shut down are little family (probably foreigners) owned shops and the chains and fancy places won’t get touched. I wonder if the liquor store lobby has anything to do with this.

        1. Unpossible!

      3. Presumably the a priori reasoning is that on the margin, there must be persons who will make a beverage buy decision based on whatever’s in the 1st store they come across. Like if it’s a liquor store they’ll buy liquor, and if it’s a juice bar they’ll buy juice. Because, you know, somebody must be like that.

    3. I’d like to know what “illegal alcohol” even means. Are there some forms of drink that are outlawed in NYC?

  6. State’s rights!

    Amirite guys?


    Guys?

    1. States don’t have rights.

      Shut up and drink.

      1. This, on both parts.

        Read the fucking 10th people. States have POWERS, people have RIGHTS.

        So shut the fuck up if you dont know what the fuck you are talking about.

      2. Also, Mayor Asswipe doesn’t run a state, he runs a city, just to be pedantic.

    2. And a little more help for the douchebag.

    3. We’re not saying it’s unconstitutional. We’re saying it’s stupid.

  7. One in Six Americans Binge Drink.

    “An estimated 38 million American adults are binge drinkers — defined as men who down five or more drinks at a sitting ..”

    http://health.yahoo.net/news/s…..-drink-cdc

    1. Your point?

      1. That the standard for “binge” drinking is ridiculously low, right? Is there another possible conclusion?

        1. Depends on how you define “one sitting”. And who is doing the drinking.

    2. And we got these numbers..how? Another question: What is counted as a drink? 6 12 oz beers is a little different from 6 2 oz scotch and sodas.

      1. actually, iirc they define drinks with equialcoholic contents

        1. Word Of The Day: equialcoholic

          1. i admit i made it up.

            there is a word “equianalgesic” used in describing opioids e.g. 7.5 mg of oral hydromorphone is equianalgesic to 20 mg of oral oxycodone…

            so, i kind of used a similar term for alcohol

            apparently, it’s not a word…

            1. It should be a word.

        2. Oh. So even though I’m pouring half a bottle of scotch into a big glass, rather than refilling my glass six times, I’m still a binge drinker?

          1. I take the opposite approach. Many small portions of Scotch.

            Is it 5:00 yet?

            1. Screw 5:00, its 4:00 somewhere.

        3. We need an alcohol “wattage” term. I’ll go with BAI (Brendan’s Alcohol Index) for now:

          # of oz. times %alcohl=BAI
          12oz of 4.5% beer=54 BAI
          1 oz of 54% liquor=54 BAI

          Using this formula:
          6x12oz of 4% beer=288 BAI while 2 oz of 40% scotch=80 BAI.

        4. The problem, of course, is that standard was made when all beers were rougly 5%. Then we got light beers and a large chunk of craft beers leave 5% in their dust.

          So, if I drink 4 bottles of Bigfoot in a single sitting Im not binge drinking?

    3. “An estimated 38 million American adults are binge drinkers — defined as men who down five or more drinks at a sitting ..”

      That’s why I get up and walk around a bit.

    4. I like how someone gets to define a term and then say we’re doing too much of it.

      “Binge drinking is defined as drinking 1 or more ounces of an alcohol containing beverage. Millions of catholics found to be binge drinking on sundays, researchers say! Even going as far as having their underage children drink with them, researchers say. Reporters say, EEEEK!!!”

    5. That might be a valid definition if those men are 4 feet tall…

  8. I still remember when I first saw Demolition Man. I thought it was fiction. Silly me. It was prophecy.

    Come to think of it, Bloomberg looks like that “Dr. Koctow” (not sure how it’s spelled) character in the movie.

    1. “Cock”- is obviously the proper spelling of the first syllable.

    2. The three seashells! An underrated film IMHO.

      1. Plus a great Denis Leary rant.

      2. To be fair, it’s pretty easy to underrate anything with Sandra Bullock.

      3. I work in one of the buildings that appeared in Demolition Man (it was the museum with those turret-like towers). Pretty impressive if you don’t think about it too long.

    3. “”I still remember when I first saw Demolition Man. I thought it was fiction”‘

      It happens. I thought “1984” was fiction.

  9. What the fuck is “illegal alcohol”? Are there a lot of ‘shiners in the Big Apple?

    1. “insufficiently permitted alcohol” would probably be more accurate to his meaning.

    2. “”What the fuck is “illegal alcohol”? Are there a lot of ‘shiners in the Big Apple?””

      I live in NYC and I have no idea what “illegal alcohol” in NYC is.

      Illegal dancing, that’s a term which I am familiar.

      1. Your Mom get a lot of citations for not having a valid license?

    3. Well, if you want some anecdotal evidence, the only time I have drunk actual moonshine was in NYC. I believe it was made locally. I think that a lot of Eastern European immigrants are into home distilling.

  10. they can “promote’ whatever the fuck they want, as long as they don’t reduce choice and freedom through legislation/the long barrel of a gun.

    for pete’s sake, it’s taken the AMA over a decade to FINALLY admit that moderate alcohol consumption is a net BENEFIT to health.

    a lot of this stuff is also incredibly classist.

    seattle for instance worked towards banning “fortified wines” etc. especially in the downtown area. iow, cheap alcohol. kind of like the push against “saturday night specials”.

    1. yeah they won’t be cracking down on hipster bars in SoHo.

      1. I would have guessed that hipsters would be drinking the same shit as poor people, just ironically.

    2. they can “promote’ whatever the fuck they want, as long as they don’t reduce choice and freedom through legislation/the long barrel of a gun use my money to do so.

      ftfy.

      and as for banning fortified wines….bets on if those jackasses were smart enough to include an exemption for the vermouth for their martinis.

      1. right. it’s just like when LA etc. put bans on new fast food restaurants in certain areas. to help those poor people who can’t help themselves

        they would NEVER do so to fancy restaurants serving equally egregious food.

        pommes frites at $7.50 a serving? fine

        McD’s french fries? not so much

    3. seattle for instance worked towards banning “fortified wines”

      Seattle was cracking down on port? Weird.

      1. Well not that kind of fortified wine. You know the kind of wine other people drink. You know the kinds poor people can afford. Anything over $15 is not what they are talking about.

        1. exactly. said with sincere liberal smugness and complete confidence that it’s THE RIGHT THING TO DO

          for the children. and the poor people. those poor teeming hordes. thank goddess, they have seattle libs to look out for their best interests… (cue: suicidal tendencies)

        2. Are you suggesting that banning fortified wine is ‘othering’ people?

        3. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L…..ified_wine

          In 2005, the Seattle City Council asked the Washington State Liquor Control Board to prohibit the sale of certain alcohol products in an impoverished “Alcohol Impact Area”. Among the products sought to be banned were over two dozen beers, and six wines: Cisco, Gino’s Premium Blend, MD 20/20, Night Train, Thunderbird, and Wild Irish Rose.[9] The Liquor Control Board approved these restrictions on 30 August 2006.The cities of Tacoma, Washington and Spokane, Washington also followed suit in instituting “Alcohol Impact Areas” of their own following Seattle’s example.

          1. I’ll bet the beers were ‘malt liquors’.

            1. Right indeed.
              http://liq.wa.gov/licensing/al…..-locations

              Seattle’s list:
              Big Bear*
              Bull Ice
              Busch Ice
              Camo Black Ice*
              Colt 45 Ice
              Colt 45 Malt Liquor
              Evil Eye*
              Hamm’s Ice Brewed Ale
              Hamm’s Ice Brewed Beer
              Hurricane Ice Malt Liquor
              Ice House*
              Johny Bootlegger*
              Joose*
              Keystone Ice
              King Cobra Malt Liquor
              Lucky Ice Ale Premium
              Lucky Ice Beer
              Magnum Malt Liquor
              Maximum Ice*
              Mickey’s Iced Brewed Ale
              Mickey’s Malt Liquor
              Miller High Life Ice
              Milwaukee Best Ice
              Milwaukee Best Premium Ice Beer
              Natural Ice
              Old Milwaukee Ice
              Olde English 800
              Olympia Ice
              Pabst Ice
              Rainier Ale
              Red Bull Malt Liquor
              Red Dog
              Schmidt’s Ice
              Special 800 Reserve
              St. Ide’s Liquor and Special Brews
              Steel Reserve
              ALL CONTAINER SIZES OF SPECIFIC FLAVORS ARE RESTRICTED
              BEER/MALT LIQUOR
              Sparks Plus*
              Tilt Green*
              Tacoma

              1. Mickey’s Malt Liquor

                Seattle is dead to me.

              2. thanks. EXACTLY my point

                classic liberal paternalistic (or is that maternalistic) crap.

                this is why i, to paraphrase matt and trey, hate liberalism more than soconism.

    4. Seattle wants to ban port, sherry, etc.? Let me guess…those “fortified wines” are exempt….

    5. British physicians still dont have a problem with pregnant women having 1 drink per day.

      1. Nor do I. Now what I mean. wink wink nudge nudge

  11. SWAT used. nobody shot, heck nobody arrested. sounds like OWS idiocy despite the genteel seattle authoritahs not wanting to make that link…

    SEATTLE — Fears of booby traps had several King County Sheriff’s deputies and SWAT team members on hand to evict several people who had been squatting in a home in the city’s Central District early Wednesday morning.

    It was just after 4 a.m. when police closed off the area surrounding the home near 23rd and East Jefferson and moved to force out seven people inside, said officials with the King County Sheriff’s Office.

    The homeowner had been remodeling the home when close to 30 people moved in at one point in December.

    Wednesday, deputies called in a SWAT team to help with eviction as they had received ominous messages from people associated with the squatting.

    “Some communication had been received through social media that there might be some barricades going up, there might be booby traps inside the home,” said Chief Deputy Steve Strachan.

    The SWAT team did find a suspicious package and sent in bomb robot, but turned out to be harmless. Deputies said their sweep of the home didn’t turn up any weapons or booby traps.

    The seven inside left peacefully and no one was arrested. Streets reopened a short time later.

    The squatters said they were affiliated with Occupy Seattle and graffiti plastered across the home had the hallmarks of the movement, but sheriff’s deputies downplayed any link, saying they didn’t know if the squatters had any political affiliation.

    1. i wonder why King County dealt with this. central district is in the city of seattle.

      this makes me go hmmm….

      did SPD not want to deal with it due to political ramifications?

      it is definitely weird. KCSO definitely HAS jurisdiction, under WA law, but as a matter of jurisdictional courtesy, SPD generally handles stuff in the city (metro etc. excepted).

      based on the OWS link, i am suspecting political concerns

    2. What does a suspicious package look like?

      1. suspicious.

      2. Swarthy. Dark hair. Probably a moustache.

      3. I’m going to start leaving “suspicious looking” bags full of shit in public places so that when the police detonate them, flaming shit goes everywhere.

      4. I think it goes along with the official use of passive voice (e.g. “mistakes were made”). If you think about it, a package can’t be suspicious; rather a person might be suspicious of the package. But to say it that way, someone woudl have to take responsibility for the suspicion, so it’s easier to pretend that suspiciousness is a quality that a package can have on its own.

    3. The seven inside left peacefully and no one was arrested.

      So how many $$$$ did they waste sending the SWAT team instead of a single pair of cops who could have just asked them to leave?

      1. Hey man, you saw what happened in Utah. There could have been 6 navy seals and Ron Paul holed up in that shack…ready to pounce on the brave men and women in blue!

      2. wow. results based RETROACTIVE analysis. how typical.

        they had what they thought were reasonable indications there might be booby traps, etc.

        thus, they used measures to reduce risk

        it turned out said traps weren’t there.

        knowing how some of these groups work, wouldn’t surprise me if they put out the messages as a ruse to divert resources.

        regardless, the justification cannot be vitiated ex-post facto because the devices were NOT there, any more than a warrant WITHOUT PC is justified ex-post facto because they found contraband

        classic example of completely misunderstanding the point

    4. That’s a confusing article. What happened to the homeowner?

      If they were there without the homeowner’s permission, why did it take so long?

      1. see my below posts

        first of all, this was city of seattle, oh so pc bend over backwards for criminals seattle (i know you may not believe it, but this is the same city that refused to engage violent rioters during mardi gras resulting in the death of kris kime. imo, SPD cop-o-crats are WAY more likely to underreact vs. overreact. witness also WTO where city officials were CERTAIN riots could not happen in seattle and thus did minimal riot training, did not buy adequate supplies (had to fly to idaho to get pepper spray in middle of WTO) etc. seattle is a special breed of extra-pc liberal idiot)

        and especially if they suspected these nimrods were OWS, they would be doubly plus incentivized to do as little as possible if anything.

    5. SWAT used. nobody shot, heck nobody arrested.

      Why no arrest? Sounds like criminal trespass, vandalism, at a minimum.

      1. WA is really weird with trespass. that aside, they might have had an absentee landlord.

        GENERALLY speaking, we don’t make trespass arrests around these parts unless we have a willing and available victim willing to sign a statement of prosecution

        even then, if there is ANY question there was not proper notice to the trespassers, we often still won’t charge even with a willing victim

        i’ve had to evict squatters from a few bank owned homes, etc. ex-post foreclosure.

        the bank is in california, for example, but the house is here in WA.

        the bank either doesn’t want prosecution or it would be too much of a pain in the ass, etc. to get somebody up here to testify, etc. so we just kick them out

        kind of shit happens all the time

  12. The projects would be funded partly by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which allocates grant money for community “transformation.”

    They passed it; now, every time I find out something new about what’s in it, I get that much more pissed off.

    1. Well clearly you just haven’t learned all the *right* wonderful things in the legislation.

      Look, they used the word “transformation”, that’s can only mean great stuff will happen right???

  13. Dear Mike Bloomberg,

    Fuck.
    You.

    Signed,
    People who remember NYC used to be a city with some fucking balls.

  14. This is as if authorities reacted to an increase in the number of people dying each year from hypothermia by turning up the thermostats in everybody’s homes and places of business.

  15. Bloomberg disgusts me. Failure is good. It leaves more room for my success. He will not know what to do with all those healthy bodies looking for jobs if he succeeds.
    Join me for a darm cask strength scotch – MacAllan if you have it – drink to his demise.

  16. Not to overlook Bloomberg’s nannyism, but WTF is this: “The projects would be funded partly by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which allocates grant money for community “transformation.””

    Money for “community transformation???” What in God’s name does this have to do with reforming the health care industry? Or is this another example of the “good things” in the law that we had have it enacted to find out about?

    Obamacare must die.

  17. Has everyone forgotten what the word liberal means? “In favour of freedom”. Why persist in calling these fascists liberals, and then denigrating the term liberal? Orwell made a good point about controlling thought by manipulating language. If people lack the language to express the concepts of freedom, then the idea of freedom dies.

  18. Wholly apart from the idiocy of trying to control alcohol consumption that way, don’t these people realize how much tax money the alcohol trade sin taxes generate? Where are they going to find a substitute for that money?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.