The Rochester Democrat & Chronicle reports that from 11 p.m. Monday (New Year's Eve!) to 7 a.m. Tuesday (Welcome, 2008!) at any of the thruway's 27 travel plazas.
While I applaud the effort to keep drivers safe, a steaming cuppa is no panacea for drunk drivers -- no, not everyone chooses to imbibe on NYE, and many designate someone to safely steer them home, but it's an issue. A big issue. If you're going to drink, take public transport. Eat something, then wait a few hours before you pick up the keys. If you're still soaking in gin, stay the night at your host's place. Just, uh, be safe ya'll.
When we began our relationship I saw the potential for many great things to become of our journey. We've shared the , . With you alongside I felt stronger than others, I became smarter and faster than our competetors. Knowing you were there to support my every decision provided me that arrogant confidence and swagger and we were ready to conquer the world.
Shortly thereafter you began to let down your guard and your "true self" begain to unveil itself to me. At first it was nothing more than a frustrating inconvience, however you rapidly took an aggressive turn for the worse and outright betrayed my loyalty to you. , and for this reason alone I can never forgive you.
I wanted to desperately to leave you shortly thereafter, but I quickly realized that I needed you.I needed you beside me so I could get my bearings in my new world. I needed you there to , to bring me comfort on the difficult nights. .
Most recently I took notice of the positive changes you've made and the progress we've made together. I'm sure we could still achieve many of our goals in time but the irreparable damage is already done.I'm confident that you will find another who can treat you better, appreciate you more and understand you completly.
In less than 36-hours I will officially bid you farewell and ceremoniously put an end to our tumultuous 365-day relationship. I will always reminice on the joyous memories we've shared and lessons you've taught me. You will never (can't) be forgotten and will always hold a special place in my life, but I honestly do not wish to see you again.
Thank you for the memories, lessons, realizations and support.
The store ran out of Baileys so I brought this for traditional Christmas evening drink... tastes like someone mixed a carton of half and half with lighter fluid.
We made the mistake of trying to impose a national prohibition against alcoholic beverage once already in our history. However, we seem to be doomed to continually repeat our mistakes over and over since our lawmakers seem to be cursed with a curious inability to learn from history, so maybe it's time to try this failed policy again. Who knows, maybe it could work this time around. Heck, spread enough disinformation and I bet we could push for a prohibition on drinking tap water too.
So why on earth would I propose such a silly thing as banning alcohol? Well, to be honest it's not any more silly than smoking bans. In fact, if you want to look at the facts, banning alcohol would actually make more sense than smoking... But since when do facts mean anything these days? Popular opinion is clearly much more powerful than reality.
I have been looking through all of the various rationales for smoking bans and have recently started a one-man campaign against Wisconsin challenging them on their premise for trying to push a smoking ban on us. Why? Because the facts just don't add up. It would seem that the prevailing underlying argument is simply dislike of smokers; however those personal feelings are masked behind all sorts of "public health" and economic claims. Along with challenging these claims, I decided to do some research of my own - not on smoke, but instead on alcohol.
And truth be told... By applying the same "public health" threat and economic arguments against alcohol, I can't quite figure out why people would push so diligently for smoking bans while allowing the public menace of alcohol to plague our society.
I decided that objectivity was better than actually looking at data from possibly skewed sources, so I looked at the CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports (MMWR's) as they provide some very useful insight that advocacy groups tend to ignore.
So, according to the CDC's , there were 438,000 annual deaths attributable to smoking. What is much more interesting, however, is the years of potential life lost (YPLL) which came out to be 5.5 million years. That comes out to roughly 12.6 years lost per death.
Looking over to the , there were 75,766 annual deaths attributed to alcohol. There were also 2.3 million YPLL, which comes out to 30.4 years lost per death.
So what does that tell us? It tells us that, on average, alcohol kills more young people. Even more interesting was the fact that the number of deaths resulting from - let's call it passive drinking - is at least equal to, if not greater than - the deaths attributed to passive smoking. So, in other words, there were more "innocent" people killed in accidents and violent acts related to alcohol than people who supposedly died as a result of secondhand smoke.
But wait! It's doesn't stop there. This just covers alcohol-related deaths. What if we factor in other crimes?
According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics, of the roughly 1 million violent crimes (murder, rape and sexual assault, robbery, and assault) committed in 2002, 30% (300,000) involved an offender who had been drinking. If we take out of that the 5,963 homicides as reported by the CDC, that still leaves 294,037 violent crimes that didn't result in a death. This isn't even taking into account property crimes.
According to the , nationally there were over 300,000 injuries from alcohol-related collisions and there were more than 1.5 million DUI arrests.
And cost? According to an outstanding (a group of educators specializing in drug and alcohol training):
Lost earnings: $69.2 billion, of which 30%-35% ($20.76-$24.22 billion) is passed along to the government.
Social Welfare: $693 million, or 3%-4% of total government welfare administration.
Motor Vehicle Crashes: $13.6 billion including:
$3.8 billion in roadway damage shouldered by state a local government
$3.1 billion in insurance administration
$3.8 billion in automobile damages
$2.9 billion in legal and court costs, of which $580 million was shouldered by state and local government
Crime Losses: $1 billion including $427 million in property crime
Incarceration Costs: $2.8 billion (140,000 incarcerations * $20,000/year incarceration cost) plus an assumed loss of $1.68 billion in lost tax revenue (140,000 incarcerations * estimated potential $12,000 tax loss)
And according to the , annual health care expenditures for alcohol-related problems total $22.5 billion. According to , 27% of the population is on public health care and 15.8% is uninsured. By those numbers, we can estimate that the public absorbs approximately $9.63 billion of alcohol-related health costs.
To bring this all into perspective, going back to the Marin Institute and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, the estimated aggregate annual cost of alcohol is $175.9 billion compared to $137 billion for smokers. I'll spare you the math and tell you that it's a difference of $38.9 billion.
So with all of this information in mind, why not ban alcohol? The economic cost is significant, the non-drinking deaths associated with alcohol is significant, the amount of crime associated with alcohol is massive...
If we were to take the same standards applied to smoking and apply them to alcohol, we should have banned alcohol without a second thought. Not only is the public burden significant, but the burden of evidence is much stronger when it comes to alcohol as opposed to smoking.
As a public menace, alcohol far and away outweighs smoking - yet smoking is under siege while alcohol is still acceptable. Why is this? What is it about smoking that drives people into such a fury and drives them to force excessive government control upon us (prohibition come to mind?) without giving it a second thought? After all, the same people pushing for the abolition of tobacco are more likely to be killed in an alcohol-related incident than by secondhand smoke.
Just some food for thought. And I hope people think about this.
Full disclosure: I do not advocate for a ban on alcohol nor a ban on smoking. I am also a non-smoker who believes in rights and freedom. I understand that smoking and drinking are not healthy activities, but I honor a person's right to choice and a private business owner's right to allow drinking or smoking on their property.
In Fairbanks, Alaska, it's illegal to serve liquor to a moose. By contrast, in Ohio it's legal to serve booze to a fish, but not if you get it drunk.
Ever since the repeal of Prohibition, alcohol laws in this country have been a bit nutty.
Take the business of bars. Some states mandate sitting, while others require standing at the bar to drink. Texans may take up to but not more than three sips of beer while standing. Some jurisdictions require the interior of public drinking establishments to be visible from the street; others specifically prohibit that.
In Iowa it's illegal to run a tab. And don't even think of having a drop after closing hours there - not even if you own the bar. It's hard to imagine the incident that led to Iowa's law stating that if an employee pours water down the drain while a police officer is drinking at the bar, the water is considered an alcoholic beverage intended for unlawful purposes.
Bars and restaurants in North Dakota are forbidden to serve beer and pretzels at the same time. Nebraska bars may not sell beer except when simultaneously brewing a kettle of soup.
If you skip the bar and head to a liquor store in Indiana, you won't find any soda or milk in the cooler. They may, however, sell warm soft drinks. In California, no alcoholic beverages may be displayed within 5 feet of a cash register if the store sells both alcohol and motor fuel. Presumably so you don't confuse your Colt 45 with your 10W40.
Who thinks these laws up? This is what our elected officials are doing, making stupid laws?
Cholesterol is divided into good and bad types but for those who suffer from type 2 diabetes, they most likely suffer from high levels of bad cholesterol. Fatty foods as part of a high cholesterol diet can easily lead to the development of diabetes and other disorders. Continuing with a high cholesterol diet after being diagnosed with diabetes is just asking for trouble as it can increase the problems associated with this disease. Cholesterol is necessary for a healthily functioning body but overly high levels of bad cholesterol in the diet can even quicken the speed at which diabetes develops.
Many people consume a high cholesterol diet of fatty foods and are unconsciously leading themselves down the path to diabetes. Diabetes does not go away but like cholesterol can be sufficiently managed with the help of an appropriate diet plan. Medications can assist in lowering cholesterol and regulating blood sugar but the easiest and most natural plan is to avoid the situation altogether by regularly exercising and eating healthily.
Helping High Cholesterol and Diabetes with a Strict Diet
High cholesterol and diabetes can both be alleviated with the use of a similar diet plan. There is no set plan for either problem but certain foods can prove invaluable when suffering from either condition. High cholesterol and diabetes can be helping by eating a diet full of grains and oats which can prove invaluable as they soak up cholesterol and release a steady amount of glucose into the body. A diet full of fresh fruit and fiber is ideal when suffering from either diabetes or high cholesterol.
Fish oil has been shown to give important advantages to the health of most people but it can considerably aid those suffering from high cholesterol and diabetes. Keeping certain conditions under control can be achieved in a number of ways using medications, for example. But in order to benefit the overall feeling of health and wellbeing, there is nothing more successful than a nutritious diet and regular exercise.
Omega 3 is an excellent tool when striving for good health as is switching from beef to bison or even turkey. White meat usually contains less fat and than red meat and can be perfect for those who are unwilling to switch to a vegetarian diet. Bison is surprisingly nutritious and low in cholesterol so can make an ideal switch. There are many similar adjustments that can be made to the diet to improve cholesterol levels and the effects of diabetes but ideally discussing any available options with a doctor is the first step.
I'd like to introduce all of my Fart Blossoms to a couple of my neighbors. These lovely ladies were arrested in DeKalb County Friday night and our fine local government is kind enough to share a list of everyone in one's zip code who is arrested every day. It's usually pretty boring - you know, the usual - murder, manslaughter, rape, burglary, etc. But every once in awhile, you find a couple of gems like these - and rarely on the same night!!!
First, I'd like you to meet Miss Zeyotta West, who, according to the police report, was arrested for disorderly conduct and public intoxication. Here's her mugshot:
I think she's innocent. I can't help but imagine what she was saying as this picture was taken...
"I ain't drunk! Muthafuckas. Shit. Wha'? Muthafucka, I AM holdin' still. You ass be the one movin' aroun'. Shit. GawdDAM iss hot up in heah. Ya'll need ta' hurry tha fuck up. This sure as shit ain't no glama shozz. I was jus' tryin' to get over to the Club Crunk to gets my drank on [Ed. Note: Club Crunk is a real place. It's across the street from the new Wal-Mart, next to the post office and sort of behind the X-rated movie theater, which is next to the 24-hour daycare center.]
Nope, she's sober as a judge.
Next up is the lovely Miss Frederica Tate, who works so hard for the money that I'm pretty sure she's soliciting the photographer. She was charged with loitering for sex, and I don't think that's fair. It's not her fault she couldn't get a trick. Look how hard she's working! Can't you hear what she's saying to the photographer?
"You want some of this? Honey, this shit will curl your toes."
Hell, I'd give her $20 bucks just to go the hell away. But really, she just needs a job.
Maybe they have an opening for her at the 24-hour daycare center or the X-rated movie theater. It think it's actually the same place.
This was at Bistro Europa on the 29th, as was performing. CL and I were drinking beer at the bar while listening; she had a Yuengling and I had a Belhaven Scottish Ale.
Bar dude: Hey, how's the Belhaven Ale? What is an ale, anyhow? Me: Well, it's kinda like a lager, but I like it because it's not very hoppy and has a slight nutty taste. It reminds me of a Dubel. Bar dude: Oh yeah, I guess you like the Belgium beers. You know, you have to add an orange to those, to change the chemistry before you drink them.
[at this point, CL is smirking quietly beside me]
Me: [giving the guy an odd look] Um, you're thinking about hefeweizens, the wheat beers, and you add a lemon to them, not oranges. The acid in the lemon juice kills the foamy head. Beer dude: Wow, you really know your beer! Me: I like to know what I'm drinking.
Yes, this was what happened, pretty much verbatim. CL pointed out to me that the Beer dude was drinking a very fruity cocktail as he was talking beer with me. Funny, but odd.
We made the mistake of trying to impose a national prohibition against alcoholic beverage once already in our history. However, we seem to be doomed to continually repeat our mistakes over and over since our lawmakers seem to be cursed with a curious inability to learn from history, so maybe it's time to try this failed policy again. Who knows, maybe it could work this time around. Heck, spread enough disinformation and I bet we could push for a prohibition on drinking tap water too.
Recent Comments