These are the 10 most nightlife-friendly cities around the world as determined by the 2023 Consumer Choice nightlife index.

As the New Year draws near, there are some party animals out there on a mission to find the best bars, clubs, parties, and more to spend the night at that will have them dancing, singing, eating, and drinking the night away. For those who prefer to celebrate the New Year in a quieter space, this is where to head.

Nightlife across the world varies, offering entertainment in St. Thomas and after-dark excitement in Mexico, not to mention Istanbul as well. Some cities have the most extraordinary nightlife, ranging from all-black clubs in Berlin to wine bars in Paris to beach parties in Buenos Aries to electrifying neon parties in Seoul to 4-story music complexes in Budapest.

To help navigate the nocturnal landscape, the Consumer Choice Centre crafted a nightlife index, evaluating thirty cities globally. Its methodology delved into the intricate web of regulations and amenities shaping urban nightlife. Factors such as mandated opening hours, last calls, the cost of a pint of beer and a Big Mac, and the availability of nighttime transport services were considered. After evaluation, each city was given a ranking out of 10 (with 10 being the city with the most nightlife-friendly appeal).

Read the full text here

In the spirit of Festivus, the annual celebration of complaint, raspberries go to prohibitionists, supply managers and health zealots

Dear friends, every year on Dec. 23, we gather to celebrate that most cherished of holidays: Festivus. Festivus was invented in the 1960s in the New York suburb of Mount Pleasant by Dan O’Keefe, a curmudgeonly editor at Reader’s Digest. It quickly became an O’Keefe family tradition. And after young Dan, Jr., became a writer for the hit 1990s comedy show “Seinfeld,” it became a global tradition. In a “Seinfeld” episode of December 1997, the show’s chief curmudgeon, Frank Costanza, father of George, introduced the holiday to the world, and it has been honoured by curmudgeons everywhere ever since.

Celebrated every Dec. 23, this strange fest usually involves an unadorned aluminum pole, a Festivus family dinner, feats of strength and the ever-important “Airing of Grievances,” in which, after dinner, every member of the family explains how all the others have disappointed them over the past year.

Article content

Ahem! If I may be so bold as to speak on behalf of Canadian consumers and direct my sentiments at our public officials, what I want to say, borrowing the immortal words of Frank Costanza, is: “We got a lot of problems with you people, and now you’re going to hear about it.”

Friends, if you want to indulge in any alcoholic beverages this Festivus, remember, don’t have more than three drinks per week! That’s what “the science” says, the science paid for by Health Canada and published by the Canadian Centre for Substance Use and Addiction (CCSA), that is. According to the CCSA, anything more than two drinks a week — a week! — significantly increases your risk of pretty much everything that’s bad. But the good news for those who may wish to break the CCSA’s guidance and raise a glass or seven is that what this agenda-driven group really wants is a neo-prohibitionist future where no one drinks at all.

Oddly enough, the authors of the CCSA report are members of a temperance organization called Movendi, which is so hardcore in its war on alcohol that its members must take an oath “to lead a life free from the use of alcohol and other intoxicating drugs.” Paying alcohol-free activists for research on drinking is like paying members of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) for a report on healthy meat consumption!

Sticking with public so-called health, federal Health Minister Mark Holland deserves extra scorn this Festivus. A new legal smoking cessation tool, nicotine pouches, recently came onto the market in Canada. The emphasis on “legal” is important, because illegal nicotine pouches were so widely available in Canada that more than three years ago Health Canada had to issue a health safety information notice about them.

You would think a health minister who has championed harm reduction for virtually everything else would celebrate a new legal reduced-risk product to help smokers quit for good. Unfortunately, consistency is in short supply in Ottawa. In fact, Canada’s health minister says “We were duped” about nicotine pouches and “I do not want this out in the world.”

Shame on him! Nicotine pouches don’t have to be inhaled. In fact, they can’t be inhaled. Which makes them significantly less harmful than smoking and a very useful tool for quitting. The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) published a comprehensive review of nicotine pouches and determined they were 99 per cent less harmful than smoking — exactly the same risk as the nicotine patches, gums and sprays that Health Canada is wild about.

According to the BfR, these products are not that attractive to minors or people who have never consumed tobacco products before, with only 11-12 per cent of that group showing interest. On the other hand, 75 per cent of smokers are interested in nicotine pouches. Both numbers, the low number for non-smokers and the high one for smokers, are good news. Lay off, minister!

A (dis)honourable Festivus mention also goes to Toronto Mayor Oliva Chow for attempting, yet again, to cap ridesharing in the lead-up to the holiday season. Who doesn’t love longer wait times and higher prices? Supply management for rides will be as perverse as it is for everything else. Which reminds me that Trade Minister Mary Ng also deserves grievances sent her way for her steadfast commitment to defending supply management, despite the fact that it artificially inflates prices at the worst possible time for ordinary Canadians, given the state of food inflation these days.

And of course, it wouldn’t be a proper Festivus without mentioning Environment Minister Stephen Guilbeault, who, after the courts overturned Ottawa’s attempt to label all plastic items “toxic,” decided it would be appropriate to waste everyone’s time and money appealing what anyone who’s not an enviro-zealot recognizes was the right decision.

That’s it for grievances for this year — though only because space is limited. And could somebody out there puh-lease do something about that! Geesh! The people who run this page! The stories I could tell you!

Merry Christmas and happy holidays, everyone. And a happy Festivus for the rest of us!

Originally published here

Dressed up as comedy, John Oliver dedicated an entire segment of his “Last Week Tonight” HBO program to focus on the ills of America’s freight rail industry. 

A self-professed train aficionado, Oliver had choice words for our commercial railroads on the matter of dangerous cargo loads, labor concerns, and an overall lackluster attention to safety. However, he doesn’t compare the industry to the troublesome safety records of the trucking or pipeline industries, which also face similar issues in transporting hazardous goods. In the end, Oliver’s analysis points predictably toward government regulation as a would-be savior of the rail industry. 

As is usually the case in a John Oliver monologue on rather niche public policy, there is one blaring fact that Oliver neglects to mention: Unlike other industries, private train companies are required by law to carry anything and everything that customers may bring their way. It’s a policy known as the common carrier obligation. 

The common carrier obligation, a cornerstone of the freight rail industry, is often hailed as a mechanism to ensure fairness and accessibility to American railways. However, a closer look reveals that this regulatory mandate, intended to benefit the public, may inadvertently impose significant costs on consumers. The seemingly noble commitment to nondiscrimination and universal service is, in reality, a double-edged sword that hinders efficiency and drives up prices for the very consumers it aims to protect. 

In telecommunications, it is similar to the Title II classification we know as net neutrality, which would force Internet Service Providers to treat all internet traffic as equal while boosting the bureaucracy around its enforcement. This principle is rooted in the idea of promoting fair competition and preventing monopolistic practices. However, the unintended consequence of this method of regulation translates into a heavier financial burden on consumers. 

To maintain a level playing field and ensure fair treatment for all shippers, regulatory bodies often scrutinize rate-setting practices. This scrutiny stifles the ability of railroads to adjust rates in response to market conditions and operational costs. As a result, rail companies find themselves hamstrung by regulations, unable to adopt competitive pricing strategies that would ultimately benefit consumers by prioritizing efficiency and timeliness. 

Mandatory nondiscriminatory services mean that rail companies must accommodate a wide array of shipping demands, leading to potential congestion and logistical challenges — the same ones Oliver lamented in his segment. The government is already highly involved in rail policy. That’s the problem.  

The Reliable Rail Service Act (S. 2071), penned by Sens. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) and Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), is just another example of a well-intentioned policy that risks stifling the very dynamism within the industry that it seeks to create. The fact of the matter is, it’s been over a hundred years and U.S. lawmakers have yet to try a regulatory scheme that reduces mandates and micromanagement of rail. It’s way past time to reassess the common carrier obligation imposed on rail companies.  

Simplifying or outright eliminating this requirement would empower rail companies to operate with greater flexibility and pursue the kind of safer practices that John Oliver no doubt wishes to see adopted. It’s harder to prioritize safe loads when the law requires rail companies to carry everything thrown at them.  

Baldwin and Marshall’s Senate colleagues should reject the Reliable Rail Service Act. Less central planning would go a long way toward improving the industry.  

Another pivotal piece of the puzzle is the regulatory structure for the Surface Transportation Board. The STB Reauthorization Act should be revisited to clarify the board’s role, emphasizing its position as a remedial agency tasked with dispute resolution and the promotion of a competitive environment. This revision would curtail the STB’s tendency to formulate its own policies and create a regulatory status quo that is more harmonious between government oversight and private sector innovation. 

A new year approaches, and with it a fresh opportunity for a paradigm shift within the U.S. freight rail industry. John Oliver was right to point out all the shortcomings of rail, but we have yet to try a 21st-century approach to regulation that sets the industry free to innovate. On our current trajectory, freight rail will continue to look and function like a relic of the past.  

Consumers have deserved better for a long time.  

Originally published here