“Talk About a Nanny State. Why Don’t They Just Close All the Liquor Establishments?”

Posted by on Jan 11, 2012 at 7:36 am

Welcome to Bloombergistan. Cocktails for me, but not for thee. I can see this guy sitting back enjoying some salted nuts, a fine malt scotch and a Cuban cigar, all while the peasants are forced into state-controlled diets and sobriety.

Party pooper!

First, Mayor Bloomberg went after smoking in public places. Then trans-fats, salt and sugary drinks.

Now Bloomberg — known for sipping fine wine and downing a cold beer from time to time — wants to crack down on alcohol sales to curb excessive drinking, according to a provocative planning document obtained by The Post.

The city Health Department’s far-reaching Partnership for a Healthier New York City initiatives proposes to slash the number of establishments in the city that sell booze.

Community “transformation” grants provided under President Obama’s health-care law would help bankroll the effort.

Community transformation? WTF is that supposed to mean??

I’d suggest living under the tyranny of Bloomberg and Obama would increase alcohol sales, and thus tax revenue, so they may want to reconsider this nonsense.
One of the goals listed in the “request for proposal” document to community groups is “reducing alcohol retail outlet (e.g. bar, corner store) density and illegal alcohol,” the document states.

“Talk about a nanny state. Why don’t they just close all the liquor establishments?” quipped Mike Long, a former liquor-store owner in Bay Ridge and head of the state Conservative Party.

“This is absolutely insane. They want to run the retail establishments in New York,” said Long, who likened the effort to the temperance movement of more than a century ago.

Health officials and advocates have also discussed banning liquor advertising seen by millions of straphangers in the transit system.

“Reduce the exposure to alcohol products and bar advertising and promotion in retail and general (trains, buses, etc.) settings (stores, restaurants, etc”, the department’s document says.

The department yesterday, declined to discuss specifics on how it would implement the controversial proposals.

“The city’s goals for the Partnership for a Healthier New York are 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,” a spokeswoman said. “Specific proposals, however, are still in the planning phase.”

Scott Wexler, president of the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association, vowed to go to court to fight any unilateral action by City Hall.

“More social engineering by Mike Bloomberg. What a surprise!,” Wexler said.

Update: Bloomberg backs off.

Mayor Bloomberg today scuttled a controversial administration proposal to slash the number of establishments serving alcohol — in a bid to curb excessive and underage drinking.

The Post exclusively reported on the wacky plan, which drew howls of outrage from responsible drinkers and operators of liquor venues across the city.

Asked if the mayor backed the effort to limit booze-selling businesses, Bloomberg spokesman Stu Loeser said, “No.”

“One reason the mayor has been successful in office is because we think there are no bad ideas in brainstorming _ and then we weigh them against other concerns. We’re deeply committed to encouraging entrepreneurs to start and expand small businesses in the city,” the mayoral spokesman said.


Tags: , ,

8 Responses to ““Talk About a Nanny State. Why Don’t They Just Close All the Liquor Establishments?””

  1. SteveAR on 11/11/12 at 12:54 pm

    As someone who lives in a dry county in NW Arkansas (it’s been dry for nearly 70 years), Bloomberg has no idea what he’s in for. Industrious people will always find a way to find legally buy liquor.

  2. Bubba on 11/11/12 at 3:05 pm

    =>”Industrious people will always find a way to find legally buy liquor.”

    And the less industrious will not bother that the ways be legal

  3. Orion on 11/11/12 at 3:11 pm

    Well, didn’t the Kennedy’s get rich (and thus gain political power) through rum-running?

    They seem to be short on Kennedy-like folks right now. Maybe they want to encourage the next crop…


  4. Anthony F. Lewis on 11/11/12 at 3:34 pm

    Read all about it right here: The Last Bartender, by Anthony F. Lewis. The book anticipates precisely this sort of nanny-state reaction to the imposition of a national healthcare law, and follows a cadre of friends who not-so-respectfully disagree.

  5. chris on 11/11/12 at 4:14 pm

    Gee, what will be the rationale for the state trying to control your behavior?

    We pay for your healthcare, we pay for your school, we pay for your food, we give you job training, we subsidize your transport, we control your communications, we protect you from criminals, we give you tax refunds for no work, we give you citizenship to reward breaking the law, we pretty much raise you and we bury you.

    Obey or face the consequences! We are the elite and armed with data developed by behavioral economists, psychologists and lawyers. We will nudge you, then fine you, then push you, then ostracize you and then jail you.

  6. huerfano on 11/11/12 at 4:37 pm

    O wonder!

    How many goodly creatures are there here! How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world!
    That has such people in it!

  7. Rlynh on 11/11/12 at 4:57 pm

    You can’t curb “excessive drinking” with prohibition. The nation tried that already, and suffered “excessive mob bootlegging” as a result.

    But I see now. Bloomberg is actually less interested in making people healthy, and more interested in Obama grant money. It always comes down to money.