Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Feb 21, 2011 19:27:36 GMT
The news today has been full of how the alcohol abuse in this country is tackled. And I for one do feel something needs to be done about it. Most people drink sensibly and they should be allowed to carry on enjoying having a drink whenever they want one as they are not a part of the real problem.
I don’t agree with the idea the price of alcohol should be made very high, that only punishes all the decent hard working people who drink in moderation. As we know its in supermarkets that very cheap alcohol can be purchased and I believe these days that people drink cheap alcohol at home before hitting the town on their nights out.
We all know how alcohol can turn a mildly mannered person into a very dangerous drunk and for me that’s the very worst side of people drinking and the most dangerous. I’m sure we have all been in situations where we have been in some danger, due to someone else getting drunk.
Personally I have never seen any point in ever getting drunk, I know I would be sick, have that room going around and around when I tired to lay down and would have a hangover from hell the next morning. It’s the reason you will hardly ever see me drinking alcohol. Just a personal choice and I have no problem at all with anyone who does enjoy drinking, each to their own I say.
When ever it comes to the government wanting to take any action to control anything, we hear the words BIG BROTHER ringing loudly in our ears. I’m against any government trying to control its people and making choices for them. But is there a case where excessive use of alcohol is concerned?
As someone who smokes (always away from anyone who would not want me smoking near them) I do feel smokers in this country have ended up being treated like lepers. But those who have shouted the loudest how much danger they were in being near a smoker, are in my view in far more danger being in a pub or out on say Torquay harbour side late on a Saturday night.
So while one part of me thinks the government should not be trying too control what people drink, another part of me says If I’m such a danger that needs controlling, then so are drunk people.
On the J Vine show today (not him as he is on his holidays) a drinks licence was being discussed. The idea is that anyone old enough to buy alcohol would need to have a licence. I do find the law strange here in the UK as you have to be 18 years old to buy alcohol, but the legal age to drink alcohol is just six years old.
When you bought alcohol with your licence, it would be swiped through a card reader to record what you had bought, including such information as the brand names. Get into trouble as result of drinking and just like you would with a car driving licence you could face a fine and points on your licence.
Repeat offenders or very serous offenders would lose their licence and therefore their right to buy alcohol in any outlet that sells it. I really do think such an idea is BIG BROTHER to the extreme and anyway I could never see it ever working.
Most of our young people who are under age to buy alcohol seem to get all they want, in most cases I expect it is bought for them by an adult and that might even be their own parents. If someone had their drinks licence taken away from them, they would just find someone else to buy the drink for them using their licence.
I know some will say the answer to the problem lies in good education about all the dangers associated with drinking to much alcohol. But does that work? Is there any evidence that using education about the dangers of anything you might care to mention really works?
I think the over abusive use of alcohol is a problem, I’m not sure how you can solve it, but is it a case that to do nothing is only going too see the problem get so much worse? Or should we just let them all drink themselves to an early grave as long as there is no risk of us getting harmed in anyway?
|
|
|
Post by aussie on Feb 21, 2011 20:08:38 GMT
If they bought that in then you could make a fortune with a home brew kit or two! The black market would love it, remember prohibition?
|
|
|
Post by stuartB on Feb 21, 2011 21:00:57 GMT
If they bought that in then you could make a fortune with a home brew kit or two! The black market would love it, remember prohibition? i already brew my own. It is so much easier than it used to be. I am saving £60 a month. The kit takes 7 days and you have 28 bottles of wine costing a little over a pound a bottle. It tastes good and reaches parts other wines cannot I hardly bother going out these days. pubs are doomed.
|
|
|
Post by lambethgull on Feb 21, 2011 21:46:35 GMT
The anti-alcohol lobby/neo-prohibitionists are a pain in the backside quite frankly, the Mary Whitehouses of our time.
That's not to say it's nice or acceptable when city and town centres are turned into virtual no-go zones on a Friday and Saturday night. It's the busy-bodies and curtain-twitchers who use this as a pretext to impose their world view and prejudices on all of us who are the problem.
If they legalised marijuana and MDMA you'd pretty much see an end to much of the nonsense witnessed at kicking out time...but I guess that's another issue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2011 21:58:15 GMT
What a frightening thought. A problem made 100 times worse by Big Brother then the last person to turn to for a solution ought to be Big Brother.
I don't think it's too different from the ever increasing obesity problem. Even the next generation of ambulances will apparantly have to be reinforced to cope with the ultra fat patients.
People stuff themselves with food (or drink) make themselves ill & the the Government says 'don't worry we'll pick up the bill for the consequences... come along to hospital and the idiot taxpayer will cough up to make you better.
If people had to take responsibility & fork out of their own pocket for the results of their over eating & drinking then they'd be a lot more careful. I certainly wouldn't drive as carefully if I thought the State was going to pay for my car to be repaired every time I pranged it.
If the State stopped paying people to sit at home on the sofa stuffing their faces with cream cakes while watching Escape to the Country they wouldn't get as fat...they'd be out in the country looking for work..keeping slim while trying to find a job & actually earn some money.
As for the licence idea...can you imagine the bureaucracy involved in that.. a huge Government department probably the size of the DVLA & another huge chunk of tax taken from the people who actually do something useful in order to fund more public sector employees engaged in replacing the thousands of lost licences every Friday & Saturday night by inebriated young boozers.
Government actions have made things bad enough already..let's not give them the chance to make things even worse.
|
|
|
Post by lambethgull on Feb 21, 2011 22:09:12 GMT
Whilst I am a supporter of publically funded healthcare, if governments think healthcare 'free at the point of delivery' means they have the right to tell everyone what we can eat and drink, what we can do with our free time or what we can or cannot smoke, then that's an arrangment I would like to pass on thank you very much.
|
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Feb 21, 2011 22:45:11 GMT
If the State stopped paying people to sit at home on the sofa stuffing their faces with cream cakes while watching Escape to the Country they wouldn't get as fat...they'd be out in the country looking for work..keeping slim while trying to find a job & actually earn some money. I had high hopes when our new government said they were going to make it so people would be better off going to work than staying home and living off hand outs. Look there are some very genuine people who can't work for all sorts of reasons. But there are far more who can but won't as they are better off living on benefits. You hear the benefits are all just going to be rolled up into one and then you hear that no one is going to get less money because that is being done, So how will that make it better off going to work if they are still going to be getting the same money in benefits? If I was in charge and a family say got £400 and there was a job down the road paying £300, I would say take it and we will give you £100 to make sure you don't lose out, not take it and your money goes down to £200. I bet I know what they would end up doing. I don't think this Big Society idea is going to work, there simply won't be enough people volunteering to do the jobs required. Councils are going to have to make big cuts, library's and even those Lambeth lollipop ladies might have to go. But do they have too, are we not paying people to sit at home and do nothing all day? lets get them out helping to keep our country working at a time it is in trouble. At least us hard working tax players would feel a little bit better knowing our hard earned money we have taken off us in taxes, is not just being given to people who could work, but won't.
|
|
|
Post by lambethgull on Feb 21, 2011 23:04:03 GMT
The unspoken deal with the welfare state is that the state pays a section of society as little as is necessary to avoid serious civil unrest and the range of other problems that would follow from unchecked poverty.
Those who dream and babble on about encouraging or 'forcing' such people to work are living in Fantasyland. The means required would not justify the end.
|
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Feb 21, 2011 23:10:55 GMT
The unspoken deal with the welfare state is that the state pays a section of society as little as is necessary to avoid serious civil unrest and the range of other problems that would follow from unchecked poverty. It might be paying some as little as possible, but others very large sums indeed Lambie. Don't your read the newspapers , I know a few families who are getting very large amounts in benefits, so I can't agree with you on this one.
|
|
|
Post by lambethgull on Feb 21, 2011 23:16:10 GMT
The unspoken deal with the welfare state is that the state pays a section of society as little as is necessary to avoid serious civil unrest and the range of other problems that would follow from unchecked poverty. It might be paying some as little as possible, but others very large sums indeed Lambie. Don't your read the newspapers , I know a few families who are getting very large amounts in benefits, so I can't agree with you on this one. Sure, some get very large amounts of cash indeed. I'm not denying that. What I am denying is the suggestion that taking away this cash and compelling these people to seek and hold employment would work (in the main). Take away these people's benefits and housing and you create a group of people who have absolutely nothing to lose. This realisation and concerns about the consequences is why the welfare state was created in the first place, not because the state suddenly became cuddly and generous!
|
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Feb 21, 2011 23:21:38 GMT
Take away these people's benefits and housing and you create a group of people who have absolutely nothing to lose. This is why the welfare state was created in the first place, not because the state suddenly became very cuddly and generous! I thought it was created so when people fell on hard times, IE lost their job and had no income, they would not end up starving and homeless, until they could get back on their feet again. But it has now turned into something that so often makes people far better off being a part of it than having to go out and work for a living. That can never be right and its time something was done so they simply don't get the money without giving something back in return for it.
|
|
|
Post by lambethgull on Feb 21, 2011 23:35:36 GMT
Take away these people's benefits and housing and you create a group of people who have absolutely nothing to lose. This is why the welfare state was created in the first place, not because the state suddenly became very cuddly and generous! I thought it was created so when people fell on hard times, IE lost their job and had no income, they would not end up starving and homeless, until they could get back on their feet again.But it has now turned into something that so often makes people far better off being a part of it than having to go out and work for a living. That can never be right and its time something was done so they simply don't get the money without giving something back in return for it. Those were/are the justifications given, but the real reason are far more pragmatic. It's not through pity or compassion that we give to those in hard times, it's through a fear that these people will take arms against the people that made them that way! Why work for a pittance when you can get the same for sitting on your arse? As Oscar Wilde said.............. "As for the virtuous poor, one can pity them, of course, but one cannot possibly admire them. They have made private terms with the enemy, and sold their birthright for very bad pottage. They must also be extraordinarily stupid." People will say "Well we shouldn't stand for it, these people should be made to work". And you think any government wouldn't have done that if it were possible?
|
|
Jon
Admin
Posts: 6,912
|
Post by Jon on Feb 21, 2011 23:37:39 GMT
What I am denying is the suggestion that taking away this cash and compelling these people to seek and hold employment would work I think the current system is so complicated that it actively discourages people from taking on casual, short-term or part-time work - because they dread getting into a pickle with over-claiming benefits / credits or having benefits / credits stopped. Some will always work even if they are worse off. Some will do all they can not to work. Most will have limited patience at jumping through hoops to be little or no better off, but would be happy to take what work they could get if it didn't cause too many complications.
|
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Feb 21, 2011 23:51:19 GMT
Lambie there are many people on benefits who hate being on them and would love to be working, even if that meant they got less money. What I feel is wrong is we have made it so some can be better off not working and because of that they won't. We have lost so much pride we once had in this county, I find that very sad.
All I'm saying is that due to all the cuts and services that might end up being lost, Is it too much to say to someone say getting £500 for nothing, we would like you to go down the library for four hours a day, so it can be kept open. Surely that would not be asking too much? They would then after all be giving something back to the country.
|
|
|
Post by stefano on Feb 22, 2011 0:03:19 GMT
As Oscar Wilde said.............. "As for the virtuous poor, one can pity them, of course, but one cannot possibly admire them. They have made private terms with the enemy, and sold their birthright for very bad pottage. They must also be extraordinarily stupid." But of course just because Oscar Wilde said that it doesn't make it true, anymore than things you or me say. He was a jailbird after all, although it is also easy to put a different slant on that
|
|