Nevermind, People, Mayor Bloomberg Doesn't Want to Take Away Your Booze

beersmile.jpg
After a massive fervor must have ensued (we're guessing that liquor businesses, like liquor patrons, can be quite vocal) following the New York Post's story on the Health Department's possible plan to make New Yorkers healthier by limiting their access to alcohol through fewer stores (and ads), the mayor has spoken, and, rest assured, friends -- he is not, at this moment, going to take away your right to party. The Post reports that their initial piece "drew howls of outrage from responsible drinkers and operators of liquor venues across the city" (which, one assumes, was not an unintended result of the article). Bloomberg spokesman Stu Loeser has come forth to quell those howls, saying that the mayor does not want to limit liquor businesses' depth and breadth and bread and butter, and, actually, this was just brainstorming. Calm down everyone, and take a nice, long sip of your beverage! Isn't that nice?

From Loeser, via the Post:

"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.

The mayor does want those of us who binge drink and those of us who sell illegal booze to minors to stop. O.K., O.K., we get it.

Meanwhile, over at Gawker, Max Read tells us to "Shut Up About New York City's Booze 'Crackdown.'" For this, we will be buying him zero drinks. Not that we're shelling out for a round for the Post, necessarily. We have to save our cash for when the crackdown really happens.

Bloomberg nixes idea to cut number of bars & liquor stores [NYP]

[JDoll / @thisisjendoll]

Go to Runnin' Scared for all our latest news coverage.

My Voice Nation Help
3 comments
Sort: Newest | Oldest
Michael McFadden
Michael McFadden

Mayor Bloombug: "This city will not back away from itscommitment to make drinking as difficult and expensive as possible!"

Whooops! Sorry....   I mis-spelled "smoking" in that quote.  Ah well, nobody wants to hire or rent to drinkers anyway, right?  And a buck a bottle (for beer that is... $10/bottle for booze) will cover the new SCHIP II costs for educating crippled children, so who can complain about it, right? Anyway, no one's talking about BANNING drinking -- just cutting down on the excess that hikes our insurance expenses.  Cutting down on bars and removing alcohol from restaurant settings where people are trying to eat healthy salt-free nonfat food will send our children the message that drinking simply isn't socially acceptable anymore.  And it'll be a small sacrifice if the elimination of alcohol ads means the Superbowl and World Series just get held in alternate years.  It *IS* for the good of our children after all!

Finally, without alcohol the quality of life in city public housing will rise significantly: alcohol is implicated in more than half of violent arrests and domestic abuse cases, not to mention vodka-fueled screaming fights drifting through the walls and threatening our secondhand health with lack of sleep!  Increasing the drinking age to 25 will help a lot with alcohol-addiction too: Remember, regardless of the hype about tobacco, alcohol is TRULY "the most addictive drug" as people actually die in the process of physical withdrawal, despite Big Alcohol's efforts to cover up the fact and pollute our airwaves with shows like Cheers and M*A*S*H.

Yep, New York City can go a long way under your next few administrations Herr ... er... Mayor Bloomberg! 

Keep it up!

Michael J. McFadden, Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Peppertree5706
Peppertree5706

Fewer liquor stores would mean higher prices and perhaps long lines but not any less liquor. Also many stores may decide to close earlier if there were less stores. 

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

Loading...