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.
Let the free market solve this one. I'm imagining a drone delivery service that sprays a uniform jet of keg juice onto your hotel quarantine balcony from a safe distance. What could possibly go wrong.
When I was in NZ's MIQ you were only allowed a certain volume of alcohol - e.g. X beers, 1 bottle of wine, or something like that each day, and to get more on later days you would have to put the consumed bottles out for collection, so you couldn't store them and then binge drink.
Why do you think it’s reasonable for the government to be deciding how much private citizens can drink? Would you support a country wide policy like this regardless of whether someone is in lockdown or not?
Is 'the line' that is being crossed 6 alcoholic beverages a day rather than 7 when it comes to the government infringing on peoples rights? Confining them (at their own expense) to a small room for 2 weeks gets a free pass?
Sounds like you missed a golden opportunity to perfect your prison hooch game. That's pruno/moonshine made & stored in a toilet for those playing at home.
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!