It's another mark against the EU. Governments all over the place are getting bolder in deciding how for their citizens how they should live, yes. But the official governing body of Europe is especially addicted to nanny state authoritarianism, and it's hard to believe that hasn't had an effect on France.
Tuesday, June 23, 2026
Vive quoi?
It is beyond bizarre that France has outlawed drinking at state-sponsored events, as well as banning unplanned gatherings in general. In response to a heatwave, so the measures could be temporary, but they're set down as law, so who knows? And this is on top of an outdoor smoking ban. If France wants to completely refute its own nationhood the only thing left to do is order their women to stop putting out.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Any attempt by a government to regulate people's behavior is of course ridiculous as well as complete folly. You can't make laws against stupidity and it's idiotic to make the attempt because people won't be governed unnecessarily. Exactly how hard could it be for anyone to add any alcohol they preferred to a large container of soda? Is the policeman likely to taste it?
It's the same with cigarette bans when the number of smokers stays the same but the stores are selling fewer packs. There's always access to the black market so the government's attempt to 'protect public health' has resulted in them handing the tobacco market to organized criminals. Way to go..
Governments across the world insist on telling adults how they must behave. The liberty to make your own lifestyle choices is continuously eroding, with new bans and taxes being implemented at every corner, usually in the name of (once again) 'protecting public health'. All the countries in Europe are interfering more and more in people’s lives. Most nanny state measures are implemented by trying to convince people it's for their own good. Nobody seems to have asked if the policies actually work. Tough lifestyle regulations don't improve public health.
Government only has a place in regulating when there's a legitimate public safety aspect. Laws against drunk driving are legitimate because more people are impaired in their reactions when drunk than aren't. Of course in practice governments abuse the idea of public safety expressly to advance their power, which makes them hard to trust in general.
Yes, it is basic math that if stores aren't selling cigarettes anymore but people are still smoking, they must be getting their fix from somewhere else. Even the people who write the laws don't seem to doubt the black market effects, or care. The goal is just to create the appearance of action. What effect it has is a secondary concern.
It's a very aggressive stance they're taking in favor of control and against allowing their citizens any measure of autonomy. It would be tempting to say that after alcohol, tobacco, and certain foods, they'll go after free speech next. Well, as it turns out, they're already doing that, so they're well ahead of the game.
Post a Comment