All people are proud about their heritage. The French are not an exception. Now the French are going to have more Champagne as an alcoholic drink. What is more important for the government, it is control of substances that are harmful for the society or the money? on the BBC News (Hebbeletwaite. 2011).
Cardelia Hebbelethwaite indicated that French senate voted in favour of moving the ban of "the absinthe" incredible alcohol, that it was prohibited in France almost 100 years ago. Yet all is changing said Hebbelethwaite, after the government voted to allow sales of the drink nicknamed " The green fairy".Absinthe is distilled with the leaves of the herb Artemisia absinthium, known as grande wormwood, which contains the drink's "special ingredient", thujone, which reputedly has mind-altering effects. (2011,¶15). The drink absinthe has been allowed to be sold as long as not to be called absinthe, although it is made from extracts of abshinte,plant. Absinthe's boom was in the middle to late 1800's. It was the queen of the parisian boulevard, It was also cheap and the drink for the poor, like the artist Vincent Van Gogh. Absinthe was first made in Switzerland, and a Swiss judge recently approved to give the region exclusive rights to produce it, for the moment this rule only apply to Switzerland, but they could seek other markets across the board.
Is it fair for the government to approve a rule to giving free will to the society if they want to buy or drink some beverages or not it is their decision. . In this case I agree that the government shouldn't control everything in the people's lives. In other words It appears reasonable to me that the government, shouldn't overprotect the people with the excuse it is dangerous and unhealthy to the society. In this case where the buyer are adults and their decision does not affect to third persons; therefore, the rule of the government with the society is to give the items to the people in order that they have enough knowledge to take their own decision to buy or not buy something. For example the government need to provide of the education and information to the country But in my opinion this decision was not to give free will and more options to the society. It's decisons seemmore a market fight with Switzerland, because they want the exclusive right to use the name absinthe. To me it is ironic that they have allowed the product to be sold as long as it is not to be called absinthe and now to fight the Swiss they will remove the ban. In addition the society is divided some of them almost are forgotten the absinthe was that half century XIX the beverages national not the champagne. and other hands other wants France to reclaim absthine as part of their heritage. For all this points in short I think the decion to allow the absthine to be sold it was more one of material interests than benefits to the people.
References
Hebblethwaite C. (2011, May 4), Absinthe in France: Legalising the "green fair". BBC News. Retrieved May 4, 2011 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13159863
Thursday, 5 May 2011
5 comments:
Before you click the blue "Publish" button for your first comment on a post, check ✔ the "Notify me" box. You want to know when your classmates contribute to a discussion you have joined.
A thoughtful response should normally mean writing for five to ten minutes. After you state your main idea, some details, explanation, examples or other follow up will help your readers.
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Susana,
ReplyDeleteI had already this article; in fact, I'd considered blogging it instead of China's ban on smoking, but in the end of this little drug war, tobacco won over alcohol. I was glad to see someone else post on this. And you've mentioned most of the things that I would have mentioned in my response.
I thought one of the funniest lines in the article is near the beginning where Clement Arnoux says that his family and friends will no longer think he is a drug addict (¶ 2 - 3), as if the legal status of the drug made any difference at all to whether it is addictive!
Perhaps he meant that his family and friends believe that if a government makes something legal it must be safe, and that if it's illegal it must be unsafe, which again seems pretty silly to me. Apparently Arnoux has a very low opinion of his family and friends' intelligence.
And as I read the article I remembered the scene in From Hell where the multiply drug addicted police chief played by Johnny Depp drinks his Abinsthe whilst reclining in his bath - the ritual, the accessories and the scene all seem very sophisticated, but I don't think I could stomach that much sugar. I never drink soft drinks because they are all so sickly sweet, and a whole cube of sugar in small glass sounds pretty awful. But on the other hand, I am very fond of rick chocolate cake, which isn't exactly sugar free.
ReplyDeletePerhaps I should give the traditionally consumed Absinthe a chance before I dismiss it as undrinkable. The trouble is, I'm not much into alcohol either - I usually drink water when I go out to restaurants, pubs and the like with friends.
This comment is obviously not especially academic - it doesn't have to be. It's a response to the article, to Susana's post, and to any other comments, which is all that is required.
Susana's post let me think a lot.Thank you,Susana! In the world,there are many kind of alleged harmful things to our health .As Peter says,tobacco is also one of them.I think Susana pointed the core of the problem.Should government ban alleged harmful things or not? In my opinion,if it is proved to be harmful to our health,government should ban it even if they lose economic benefit.
ReplyDeleteKuriko,
ReplyDeleteFatty pork, beef, and other things that many people want to eat even if they know the risks, are also unhealthy, just like wine, champagne, sugar, McDonalds, excessive sitting, and so on.
Do you really think that all of these things should be banned? There would be a lot of conversations like the following:
Police officer: "I'm sorry sir, but you have not exercised for three days, and that is unhealthy, so you are under arrest for the crime of unhealthy behaviour and must go to prison for one week, where you will be forced to exercise everyday."
And if it were proved that living in the pollution and stress of Bangkok were unhealthy, would that be a good reason make it a crime to live in Bangkok? If your AEP class is stressful and therefore unhealthy, must AEP be banned?
But I agree absolutely that if you actually harm or even endanger other people without their consent, you should be punished, and that such behaviour should be banned. It saddens me that I see far too many stories like this one just published in The Nation's breaking news section: "Woman killed, 2 people injured allegedly by drunk bus driver".
ReplyDeleteDrinking, even getting paralytically drunk, should not be banned - it's stupid and very unhealthy, but that's all.
Driving should not be banned - it's dangerous and pollutes, but that is all.
However, the combination of drinking and driving is always completely wrong and should be punished severely. I would like to see the Thai government make stricter penalties for this. If someone is drinking and driving the first time, they should immediately lose their license for at least 6 months. If they do it again, they should loose their license permanently and be sent to prison for a few months - they really are criminals recklessly endangering other people. And these penalties need to be enforced by the police against everyone who drinks and drives. It would set a very good example for a few rich or famous people to be sent to prison for this crime. If people drink they should take a taxi or make some other arrangement.
References
Woman killed, 2 people injured allegedly by drunk bus driver. (2011, May 6). The Nation. Retrieved May 6, 2011 from http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/Woman-killed-2-people-injured-allegedly-by-drunk-b-30154759.html
(You cannot blog an article in The Nation; however, it's OK to cite it as another source in your blog or in a comment.)