Friction can be a drag

In the interests of free speech…just make it interesting

It’s clear: if alcohol is more expensive, lives are saved and crime falls. So why the resistance?

with 11 comments

cheap-wine1Can you be “lukewarm” about a proposal that would save lives and cut crime? Can you indulge in a philosophical discussion about governments and how far they should interfere with our lives, when people are dying of diseases that could be prevented? Gordon Brown says that he is “lukewarm” on proposals to introduce a minimum pricing strategy to curb alcohol, but he knows, because Sir Liam Donaldson, his Chief Medical Officer, has told him, that the statistics show overwhelmingly that putting up prices would dramatically cut the number of alcohol-related deaths. Magnus Linklater, Times Online
One-time ‘Beer Drinker of the Year’ Ken Clarke says binge drinking among the young is not a recent problem and that raising the minimum price for a unit of alcohol would unfairly punish ordinary drinkers.
Ken Clarke, Question Time


Written by tree2one

March 20, 2009 at 4:36 pm

Posted in drugs, politics

11 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Come on. If people are stupid enough to drink themselves to death, or so diseased, let them.

    I say start selling opium, heroin, coke, crack, and meth to people as well.

    I don’t do any of that shit, so it will just clear the way for those without addictive personalities to thrive.

    We gotta stop saving people from their failures and helping them to breed successfully. See the movie idiocracy for further details.

    And if binge drinking means more drunks acting out on the street, I say new policing policy. 1) let the drunks fight it out to the death. 2) beat the hell out of drunks who hurt innocent people, as bouncers often do at clubs.

    If people can’t learn from direct experience, they won’t learn at all, at any price.


    March 24, 2009 at 11:23 am

  2. So are you OK with the NHS and Police footing the bill for this increased freedom?


    March 24, 2009 at 11:47 am

  3. Obviously the majority of these dead beats are on welfare anyways, if they weren’t they would afford proper alchohol and have some intelligence in how they use it. So I suspect that we could save money in the long term.


    March 24, 2009 at 12:01 pm

  4. According an article in the Telegraph (link below) the middle class are biggest abusers of alcohol. Apparently figures show one in four couples in some affluent areas are regularly consuming “hazardous” levels of alcohol. A study involving every local authority in the country found the worst rates of dangerous weekly drinking are in some of the country’s most attractive suburbs. The figures, compiled by the North West Public Health Observatory (NWPHO), found more people drink to hazardous levels in affluent areas than in poorer ones. Prof Mark Bellis, the director of the NWPHO, suggested “substantial” increases in the price of alcohol could help to tackle the problem.


    March 24, 2009 at 12:12 pm

    • 😉 something tells me they won’t be affluent middle class for long…

      If I change my position now though, either I’m only talking about what affects me monetarily, or I’m prejudiced against people on welfare.

      So fuck the middle class too… down with the losers! Send them on their way faster… even if it costs me more. In the long run we’ll get rid of wasters.


      March 24, 2009 at 12:24 pm

  5. What about teenage binge-drinkrs – f**k them too?

    A recent European survey of 35 countries found the UK had the third-highest number of 15 and 16-year-olds with an alcohol problem. Only youngsters in Bulgaria and the Isle of Man abused drink to a greater extent.

    Professor Martin Plant, the University of the West of England academic who led the research, recommends that “a minimum price of 50p per unit of alcohol should be introduced. This would save over 3,000 lives per year. It could save £1 billion-per-year in the cost of alcohol-related harm.”–chronic-teenage-binge-drinking-problem-highlighted-by-European-poll.html


    March 26, 2009 at 4:47 pm

  6. It is illegal for 15 and 16 year olds to buy alcohol.
    F*cking them is advocating an increase in government revenue off the back of their illegal activity.


    March 26, 2009 at 5:09 pm

  7. Yes, this is what the ‘experts’ seem to be advising –
    If you can’t beat em, tax em and hope to price some of the little f**kers out of the market.


    March 26, 2009 at 9:00 pm

  8. Come on, smuggling is tax evasion. If the alchohol is to be found it will be. Actually, in the north of canada youth sniff gas, which is terrible. Should we also tax gas for the purposes of sniffing?

    At some point people are responsible for themselves, and when they are young, their family is responsible for them, and they should be properly punished, not taxed. gimme a break.


    March 30, 2009 at 9:55 am

  9. So where families are clearly not taking on this responsibility, is the logical upshot of your position that the parents should be punished by the state for allowing their children to drink (illegally)?
    How about government awareness raising activities – is this still too nanny-state for you?


    March 30, 2009 at 1:21 pm

  10. Wot no answer Rex?


    November 24, 2010 at 11:12 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: