Best Posts in Thread: Alcohol ban

Not to forget that there may well be new strains of the virus coming up every year, and vaccines will never catch them all, as is the case with the flu.

One reason they gave for banning liquor in Bohol recently was, they don't want people to get together drinking in their homes violating physical distancing. I think I also read somewhere about medical reasons, which isn't even wrong - drinking weakens your immune system. So this is all nicely thought out but if you continue that line of thought you end up with a cure that's much worse than the disease - micro managing people's lives and telling them what to do and what not even in their homes.

All this stay-at-home stuff is already intrusive enough but they can't seriously try tell people what to do in their houses. There's a reason why most western societies are very careful with even suggesting such measures, even at the price of being hit harder by the disease. This isn't negligence or ignorance. It's careful weighing of options and competing values, before taking away people's freedoms. Heck there would be a riot the moment they would forbid making or selling beer in Germany. And rightly so. Cheers

 

thanks for your advice, but just doing what is expected from me would make my life just a bit too boring, especially right now

I dont know the intent of why they would put an assumed liquor ban under the restrictions about operating vehicles in _two_ different sub sections if it had nothing to do with vehicles. In _two_ differently worded sentences. If the author would struggle with the english language, for sure they wouldn't have gone through that effort without reason?

If the intent was to put out a liquor ban for the general public, it would have been much more straight forward to just make that a separate section, or even a separate EO.

 

I just looked up the EO and I found two places mentioning alcoholic beverages.

Both under D) 'suspension of all operations of land vehicles"

It starts with numbers 1 to 3 detailing what vehicles are allowed on the streets, then starts two sub listings on the next page with conditions "for residents" (of negor?) and "non residents" listing requirements apparently for business related vehicles being allowed to go anywhere (bring business permit, max 2 assistants, 1 driver etc)

these sublistings both have as their last clause "strict banning of alcohol beverages" (for residents) or "selling of alcoholic beverages are [sic] strictly prohibited" (for non-residents).

The next point is 5. continuing with allowing all afp, pnp etc vehicles.

Not only is the 4. heading missing (maybe lost in the process of posting the document as photos on fb), but what on earth do they actually mean with these badly worded and apparently out-of-context restrictions? does it actually mean that no commercial delivery trucks carrying alcoholic beverages are allowed to drive? why the different wording for residents / non residents?

Either way, to me it doesnt seem to declare a liquor ban for stores, but appears to be a ban on liquor delivery vehicles. For whatever reason. They could as well ban chocolate deliveries or whatever. Maybe the author is a recovered alcoholic who hates himself and the world and therefore sneaked this into the resolution there.

who knows. buy the stuff as long as it's on the shelves