I was recently locked in a hotel room for 2 weeks in Sydney because I flew in from Canada.
During that time, I was allowed to order only 6 beers or one bottle of wine per day. If I ordered more (with door dash or whatever) the front desk would hold it and only deliver the allowed amount per day.
Out of spite I was tempted to order 6 beers each and every day, then drink them all on the last day!
This reminds me of the outcry when the Australian Bathurst 1000 car race, introduced beer limits to their campgrounds.
I was angry initially, then found out it was limited to 24 cans of full strength beer per person per day - apparently this is not enough for the event patrons.
If this observation doesn't convert you over to our teaching about the one true slippery slope, I guess nothing will. The nanny state doesn't have a point at which it is satisfied, it's drunk on power -- as are the people who repeat the decreasingly "reasonable" dictates verbatim.
The article is a bit confusing because as you read along
> A Sydney Local Health District spokeswoman confirmed the limits are in place in NSW Health’s Special Health Accomodation, where Covid-positive patients and close contacts are sent for isolation.
> [. . .] A NSW Police spokeswoman said Police officers are not confiscating alcohol delivered to residential buildings, and do not have powers to do so.
Placing restrictions on deliveries to people’s homes that they own would seem excessive but I’m not sure if the same should apply to a social housing building of this type. I think homeless shelters elsewhere restrict alcohol and impose other stringent rules.
These are formerly-homeless people's homes. It's not a "shelter" you might traditionally think of, it's a block of apartments that people live in.
It's a social housing project, and probably there is a relatively high proportion of residents with mental health issues, but that does not mean they forfeit their fundamental rights. Or rather, it should not: the exact same slippery slope argument has been used countless times in the past to strip people of their freedom, privacy, autonomy, and to take their children away from them.
Can you save them up and really have a go on the weekend or is it “use it or lose it”? I feel like six is pretty reasonable, especially for the sheilas. Especially the bigger fosters cans.
Readit News
During that time, I was allowed to order only 6 beers or one bottle of wine per day. If I ordered more (with door dash or whatever) the front desk would hold it and only deliver the allowed amount per day.
Out of spite I was tempted to order 6 beers each and every day, then drink them all on the last day!
I was angry initially, then found out it was limited to 24 cans of full strength beer per person per day - apparently this is not enough for the event patrons.
If this observation doesn't convert you over to our teaching about the one true slippery slope, I guess nothing will. The nanny state doesn't have a point at which it is satisfied, it's drunk on power -- as are the people who repeat the decreasingly "reasonable" dictates verbatim.
Deleted Comment
This is why government power and control should be limited even for health and safety reasons.
> A Sydney Local Health District spokeswoman confirmed the limits are in place in NSW Health’s Special Health Accomodation, where Covid-positive patients and close contacts are sent for isolation.
> [. . .] A NSW Police spokeswoman said Police officers are not confiscating alcohol delivered to residential buildings, and do not have powers to do so.
Digging further it seems like the building is a homeless shelter and is under a 2 week lockdown https://7news.com.au/lifestyle/health-wellbeing/mission-aust...
Placing restrictions on deliveries to people’s homes that they own would seem excessive but I’m not sure if the same should apply to a social housing building of this type. I think homeless shelters elsewhere restrict alcohol and impose other stringent rules.
It's a social housing project, and probably there is a relatively high proportion of residents with mental health issues, but that does not mean they forfeit their fundamental rights. Or rather, it should not: the exact same slippery slope argument has been used countless times in the past to strip people of their freedom, privacy, autonomy, and to take their children away from them.