Thankfully here in Scotland we have a SNP government that has taken on the drinks lobby, inspite of the vociferous opposition of Ms Abbott’s Labour colleagues. Maybe she ought to have a word in their shell like?

Great piece. The idea of getting it onto the National curriculum is an excellent idea, and it is fairly pathetic that the Tories, who are usually awfully keen to lecture us little people on the subject of “responsibility”, don’t seem at all enthusiastic about teaching it to kids if they think it will damage the noble cause of profit.

Want to save taxpayers’ money, Mr. Cameron? Do something about Britain’s bullshit macho drinking culture and create a few less alcoholics. Free up police manpower to deal with serious stuff instead of stopping idiots from beating the snot out of each other on a Friday night. Oh, and the NHS won’t spend so much time patching said idiots up.

Kudos to Ms Abbott for using the correct number for alcohol-related fatalities, not the grotesque overestimates prevalent among the puritan lobby. In terms of costs, alcohol excise duty raises GBP15bn a year, so the NHS (and policing and whatever) make a more than decent return.

The point about cutting lager from 5% to 4.8% is that it doesn’t make any appreciable difference to the taste or the number of drinks you have, whilst nonetheless meaning that lager drinkers imbibe 4% less alcohol over time. If, on the other hand, you were to cut lager back to the pissweak 3.3% excrescences that were prevalent in the 1980s, there would be a rightful mutiny among drinkers, and also a likely increase in the number of drinks consumed.

The multinational drinks companies and the large pub companies (unlike many club owners, a few pub landlords, and some smaller drinks companies) really don’t want to see drunken violence either. Crime, arrest, people hating you, it all gets in the way of business. So yes, it’s fair to say there’s a focus by both the government and the industry on mitigating the social disorder impact of drinking.

Banning adverts on the telly? Not convinced that’ll do anything. Think of the drinks kids drink in the park – they’re the cheapest ABV and always have been, not the ones with superfly adverts.

Ron: hahahahaha. The idea that putting cheap booze producers out of the market is against the interests of the drinks lobby is amusing, but doesn’t make any economic sense.

Per capita alcohol consumption has declined substantially in recent years. Drinking and binge drinkers among the young is also on a downward trend. Health harm due to alcohol will follow these trends as sure as night follows day. Diane, you should visit your own H of C library.
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN03311
See also here for a good summary of the current situation.
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-qa-the-truth-about-boozed-up-britain/9812
Perhaps the Government is just recognising that people don’t want state interference in this matter. I speak as a drinker, a smoker – recently now more of ecigs, which the Goverment, after pressure from its friends in the pharmaceutical industry, is currently figuring out how to tax or ban – and, due to my exercise regime, a slim, fit and athletic person. Now, obesity. Well, that’s a different matter altogether. I’m a bit peed off about paying for all these diabetics…….

John B, I don’t think this issue is a laughing matter. This is not about stamping on ‘cheap booze providers’ as you put it as we know there is a clear link between affordability and consumption – the cheaper the booze the more people swally. As for the economic case, Scotland’s Chief Medical Officer hit the nail on the head when he stated, “Alcohol-related disease and violence are costing the NHS millions of pounds every year and this cannot be allowed to continue.”
Add to that the support of the Scottish Licensed Trade Association, all 17 of Scotland’s public health directors in NHS Scotland, the British Medical Association, the Royal Colleges, ACPOS, Scottish Licensed Trade Association, Church of Scotland, various children’s charities, Tennents and Greene King plus the Tories & Liberals who have now come on board, and I think most fair minded people would at the very least be willing to give the Government’s initiative an opportunity to prove itself.

Legalising, regulating, and taxing narcotics would be a far more effective method of takling the alcohol lobby. Given how often they shit themselves and donate fuckloads to pro-war on drugs politicians whenever the subject of relaxing drugs laws enters the equation.

“For example, lagers which had strength of 5% are now being sold at 4.8% – this staggering 0.2% is strength is mere lip service to the issue according to the health select committee.”

Do you not re-read your sentences after you’ve written them, Diane? Does nobody else do it for you? This makes no sense.

Government should leave alcohol alone. It is bad enough that marajuana is illegal and smoking and sex are moralised about. But binge drinking is fundementally British.

Roman geographers, lets not forget, noted that this strange island extremity of their empire was unuaully disinclined to water down our wine.

And nowadays – British people don’t get together for dinner parties. We don’t spend afternoons in coffee shops together. We drink together. and a government as disasterously inept as this one can’t be seen to tell us we must continue to work hard but must stop playing hard. It simply can’t.

Oh, and yes, I’m a regular binge drinker. and to paraphrase the late great Bill Hicks – I got really drunk – I never beat anyone, never raped anyone, never lost hmmm… one f****** job! I got drunk and had a real good time.

So, how do I vote against a committee that wants to stop me living my life and hurting no one?

What policies exactly is nanny proposing?
I must have missed that bit.

PS

sorry if that last post of mine was a little liberal for liberal conspiracy.

Ron @1:

Sadly, the principal research by Sheffield Uni Alcohol Group, used to justify the recent Scottish legislation does not actually stand up as evidence that the legislation work, for a number of reasons. Nor do the metanalyses quoted within that research (which the Sheffield research seems designed to fit in with) priovide evidence that mimimum unit pricing is an appropriate way to tackle “problem drinking” and consequent NHS costs. In fact, it is likely (in keeping with intuition) to have significant negative side effects as people still buy drink at the expense of other things.

For details, see http://thoughcowardsflinch.com/2012/05/24/the-perversion-of-science-and-the-chavification-of-scotlands-alcohol-laws/#comments

Serisouly, it’s almost like MPs don’t read the Daily Mash…

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/government-still-thinks-you-drink-like-a-bastard-because-its-cheap-201101183442

Leaving aside the main argument for a moment, what’s with the OP’s loathsome tribalism? This is not a problem created by Lansley, and the Coalition has been more vocal on this subject than the OP’s own party in government. (I’m not saying this is a good or bad thing please note).

As this is one of the “biggest health issues of the day”, perhaps the OP should get out of the playground and take the subject more seriously. Perhaps even suggest a course of action?

Ron, did you even read what I wrote? I think you’ve misunderstood my point.

Add to that the support of the Scottish Licensed Trade Association, all 17 of Scotland’s public health directors in NHS Scotland, the British Medical Association, the Royal Colleges, ACPOS, Scottish Licensed Trade Association, Church of Scotland, various children’s charities, Tennents and Greene King plus the Tories & Liberals who have now come on board, and I think most fair minded people would at the very least be willing to give the Government’s initiative an opportunity to prove itself.

Everyone in Scotland who sells alcohol for more than 50p a unit is totally on board. All the pubs, and the two leading kegged beer brewers. And while they haven’t signed this piece because of SWA rules, Diageo and Pernod have come out in favour as well in their representations to the English government.

The SWA is not in favour, because Glen Catrine, the biggest drinks company you’ve never heard of, would be put out of business by it. They’re the fellows who make Glen’s Vodka and most of the tenner a bottle whiskies. They’re the no-name, no-brand company that makes over 10% of the UK’s spirits consumption, and are the biggest employer in the Highlands outside of hydro.

Jack

Tribalism or not – the big problem is that a lot of people (around 650 of them) who seem never to have actually met and spent time with and talked to normal people in Britain – let alone walked a mile in their shoes, doing physically and mentally draining jobs only to be rewarded with a life-long struggle to pay the bills and the rent – who sdespite that seem to think they should be able to tell us we are wrong for doing whatever we can do to maintain some sense of social engagement and to simply cope with the hardship that is daily life over a seventy year period.

Indeed most amazingly of all – they don’t seem to think there might be a consequence if this country gives up its one remaining legal coping mechanism besides believing in magical wizards in funny hats (religion).

@marginforerror

I think most “normal people of Britain” would like to be able to go out to the pub without being attacked by a group of drunken yobs who’ve been taking part in binge drinking.

There’s nothing wrong with people having a few pints and getting a bit tipsy.

There’s a lot wrong with people getting so drunk they can’t even control themselves, starting a fight at 3am and then wasting the NHS’ time by demanding to be taken to hospital as they fell over or are too drunk to remember where they live.

@ 16 Richard

Avoiding the issue of what “normal people” are (it generally means “people who agree with me”), you’re right… but what to do about it? How do we discourage disorderly behaviour created by drunkenness without penalising non-violent/selfish drinkers?

I don’t think the answer is to raise prices so that only middle-class people can afford to regularly get pissed, which is the perennial option on the table. I also don’t think it’s to massively punish drunken reprobates, given that ridiculous booze sessions seem to be a teenage/young-adult phase for many people, and they’re less likely to improve if they’ve been given a criminal record and therefore can’t do what they wanted in life.

“The government is keen, eager even, not to upset the drinks lobby, ignoring robust measures such as: banning adverts for alcohol on TVs and at cinemas if they may be seen by kids, as happens in France; or make teaching about the dangers of alcohol abuse a part of the national curriculum.”

Uh, does anyone know what the current policy is on this? Because I was under the impression that we already banned advertising for booze around TV shows likely to be watched by kids, and when I was at school I learned about the dangers of alcohol out of a standard-issue GCSE textbook.

I’m also not comfortable with the general tone of the article blaming drinks companies for drunken disorder. Why not blame the people who choose to get drunk even though they know it makes them violent/antisocial? If drinks companies were glamorising drunkeness or claiming that four bottles of rose a day is good for the spleen then I’d see a need to point fingers, but AFAIK they’re pretty bloody careful not to do that these days.

I’d rather the government pleased the drinks lobby than pleased Diane Abbott.

Richard

Hehe. Same old predictable claptrap. Right now I’ve had six post work pints. I’m midway between the start of my night (the pints) and a late night bar where I’ll drink a lot of rum.
No fights. No rapes. No NHS AnE. Just the end of a working week.
How does that fit with you you moralizing diatribe?

Also Richard.
How many of YOUR normal people are still in the pub at 3am to be attacked by the out of control drunks you hypothesized?

It’s clearly the fault of Diane Abbott and her colleagues for allowing all night drinking. Well, that’s her view anyway, though I wouldn’t agree with her.

Alchohol and legislating share one thing at least; if you can’t handle responsibility, you shouldn’t touch it.

I think most “normal people of Britain” would like to be able to go out to the pub without being attacked by a group of drunken yobs who’ve been taking part in binge drinking.

Luckily, that only happens in your imagination.

@23 And every Thursday, Friday and Saturday night in Blackpool town centre. Although I am more than prepared to believe that the local police force, though not my own eyes, are lying about that.

“…group of drunken yobs who’ve been taking part in binge drinking.”

I should also point out that taking part in “binge drinking” does not mean you are a yob or even that you are drunk if you use the UK definition of the word. Officially, “binge drinking” means having eight units (about three pints of lager) in one sitting for men and six units for women: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binge_drinking

I don’t know about you, but I generally don’t lose self-control, throw up, turn into a wanker, or even end up with a hangover after three pints. Unfortunately, this ridiculous definition allows politicians and newspapers to fan the flames of fear and outrage by publishing dramatic stats about the amount of “binge drinking” going on… at which the public imagines yobs fighting, fucking and puking after 15 cans of beer, not someone having less than a bottle of wine in front of the telly.

@ 24 Cylux

“And every Thursday, Friday and Saturday night in Blackpool town centre. ”

Cylux, how much of that is drunken yobs attacking random, well-behaved people, and how much of it is drunken yobs fighting each other? Manchester City Centre can be a mess and a little bit scary on a bad Saturday night (I think it was the inspiration for I Predict A Riot), but when I’m deciding whether to go out to the Northern Quarter I don’t really feel the need to weigh up the risk of being assaulted on my way back through Piccadilly Gardens.

Once again I will leave it to the Daily Mash to articulate my response to this arrant nonsense.

“It seems to me that they may have confused a safe daily limit with what I like to call ‘lunch’. As an adult, I think a reasonable daily limit is me drinking as much as I fucking want.”

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/health/daily-alcohol-limits-not-really-working-for-us-say-drinkers-200901231531

In fact something else has now annoyed me about this,article now.

The NHS is not, never has been, and must never become a tool of oppression, dictatorship and interference in the lives of free people.

The NHS is not a catch all justification for politicos demanding we all behave more like them. It is an act of solidarity by and for all the people of this nation.

And a warning to certain MPs who might be reading. What about those binge drinkers among us who eat healthy and play sports (I’m one such drinker)and thus are not fat? Is it hypocritical for clinically obese MPs to pontificate about the NHS cost of our alcoholism?

In fact something else has now annoyed me about this,article now.

The NHS is not, never has been, and must never become a tool of oppression, dictatorship and interference in the lives of free people.

The NHS is not a catch all justification for politicos demanding we all behave more like them. It is an act of solidarity by and for all the people of this nation.

And a warning to certain MPs who might be reading. What about those binge drinkers among us who eat healthy and play sports (I’m one such drinker)and thus are not fat? Is it hypocritical for clinically obese MPs to pontificate about the NHS cost of our alcoholism?

@26 About 50/50 at a guess, there’s plenty of drunk thugs ginned up for a fight that find each other, there’s also plenty of completely random violence too. I’ve seen people (including sober people – who were still in their work uniform walking home) minding their own business get the shit beaten out of them by drunken thugs who they’ve never seen nor met before, there’s usually a shit reason behind it like “he accidentally jostled me” or “he looked/didn’t look at my bird” or “just cos I want to look hard for me mates”.
But then we do get plenty of out-of-towners thanks to the whole resort town thing, and I guess they figure they can cause whatever trouble they feel like and it’ll not matter. The police certainly can’t contain it every weekend, so the chances of getting away with something is quite high.

The big irony is that the selfish fucks who call themselves “hoteliers” are the one’s who brought this all about by doing all in their power to turn Blackpool into the Stag and Hen Mecca, now that they can’t get family business for love nor money, and the stags and hen bust up their hotels every weekend, they’re now bleating about how much money they ain’t making. I hope all the fuckers go to the wall.

“this closeness is costing lives”

Not an issue when it’s Labour costing the lives though, eh Di? Yuck.

I actually want to like Dianne Abbott. However, even if she was 100% right on this issue, her tone, hypocrisy, etc etc is just disgraceful.

A bit harsh to single out one politician for this, but she’s not a party clone and I’d expect so much better.

The reason that per capita consumption of alcohol appears to have gone down is because there is a much larger proportion of the population that do not drink at all ( for religious and other reasons) in fact all the indicators of alcohol abuse I.e. are spiralling upwards.

I’m a recovering alcoholic; and I’m afraid I favour huge (though incremental) increases in the tax on alcoholic drinks – to Scandinavian levels.

The argument that we should be able to drink whatever and whenever we like without any great financial or fiscal disincentive sounds very ‘liberal’: unfortunately, when we have a system of socialised medicine, the costs of binge drinking and alcohol abuse (like obesity) fall upon us all.

Moreover, the costs of social disorder from binge drinking fall upon the public purse, too.

Alcohol is an extremely dangerous drug – arguably much more addictive than many illegal drugs. I favour the legalisation of hard and soft drugs, with taxation appropriate to their potential harm. And, given the potential harm of alcoholic drinks, tax on them should rise.

TONE

Same high taxes for McDonald’s, rock climbing and fast cars then huh? And of course rebates for those of us who stay fit and healthy?

Or is it just alcohol we are moralizing about here, not fatness and accidents of our own making?

chaise guevara:

“I’m also not comfortable with the general tone of the article blaming drinks companies for drunken disorder. Why not blame the people who choose to get drunk even though they know it makes them violent/antisocial?”

Because that would suggest that human beings are free agents and able to make choices? Or perhaps collective punishment of the many for the misdeeds of the few is a principle which is close to the authoritarian heart.

The NHS is not, never has been, and must never become a tool of oppression, dictatorship and interference in the lives of free people.

But that is the inevitable result.

It allows the state to dictate lifestyle by arguing that what it disagrees with is costly….. to the state. The NHS legitimises political interference into peoples lives by arguing that the it has to deal with the consequences of disapproved behaviour.

So don’t treat my lung cancer or obesity. If I am stupid enough to drink to excess and fall into the gutter on the way home, please leave me there. I’d rather freeze to death than put up with the lecture.

But how do I opt out?

Pagar @ 36

It allows the state to dictate lifestyle by arguing that what it disagrees with is costly….. to the state

Rubbish! Opportunist politicians may say that, but in the scheme of things, we all pay into the system and therefore we all take out of the system. People like Abbott need to be careful with this type of shit, because it will come to bite her, or more likely, her constituents, in the arse. What you are looking at here is New Labour abject stupidity rather than anything else. Of course I am willing to bet you don’t have lung cancer…

But how do I opt out?

What could be simpler than moving to a third World Country, like Somilia?
…yet. I wonder if you will be so stoical after you have been diagnosed.

@ Jim

GPs have signed off a series of sweeping referral restrictions by NHS managers that will bar smokers and overweight patients from being referred for surgery, as PCTs across the country bring in new cost-saving restrictions.

Both LMCs and GP consortium leaders have backed moves by NHS Hertfordshire to block any patient with a BMI over 30 from being referred for routine joint replacement surgery without first being referred to a weight management scheme. GPs will also be prevented from referring smokers for any orthopaedic surgery until they have been referred for smoking cessation.

http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/newsarticle-content/-/article_display_list/12430351/gps-agree-ban-on-operations-for-smokers-and-obese-patients

That is the caring face of the NHS……

Of course when the obese Diane Abbott needs her knees replaced she will be able to have it done privately and dodge the weight management scheme.

Let’s cut to the car chase here. There are three basic approaches to ‘reform’ of the NHS. People like you and the likes of Daniel Hannon want a complete end to Social medicine overnight. I am not trying to trick you into something that you later regret saying, you have made your position clear and no doubt you would confirm this.

Second is the Tories who want an orderly shift from social to private medicine.

Lastly, the New Labour who want a gradual shift from social to private medicine.

All three groups have correctly identified the way to do this is to demonise swathes of patients and turn one against the other, same as the rest of society.

Diane Abbott has signalled the death knell for the NHS, because once you isolate a sub group of people and their behaviour, you immediately draw barriers between groups. I don’t smoke and therefore it is very seductive to suggest that smokers should be forced to pay for treatment, thus saving me the trouble of doing so. However, I know that once we go down that route, the NHS is dead. Who is next on Diane’s chopping list? Meat eaters? Office workers?

We know that eating processed meat and prolonged sitting increases your risk to bowel cancer, so does that mean we should stop treating such people who eat a couple of rashers of bacon before sitting at an office desk? Skin cancer? Cervical cancer? Again we know that the earlier a woman begins sexual activity she is exposing herself to the virus that causes cervical cancer, so are such women to be condemned? Then who does actually qualify for NHS treatment? We all have our own risk factors, be it smoking, drinking,sex, fast cars, drug taking, meat, office working, sport, non sport, sunbathing etc. I would call this ‘life’ rather than risk factors. Who gets to decide whether or not our behaviour is ‘worthy’ of treatment?

Okay, let us take it to the natural conclusion. I am white and male. I am at a lower risk of contracting prostate cancer than a black male. Should I be able to buy cheaper insurance than a black male, given that he is at a higher risk? What if I do have the genetic markers for breast cancer, MS or whatever?

I get that people like you, the Tories and parts of New Labour are keen to dismantle the NHS and are going about the business with enthusiasm. Again, I am not faulting you for openly holding out your beliefs (of course I think you are wrong, but that is a different thread), however, supporters of the NHS should be careful in using language that goes anywhere near singling out people for their behaviour.

@ Jim

I am in favour of an insurance based health system with safeguards for those unable to contribute. I am also in favour of a market mechanism to deliver services.

But actually what irritates me most about the NHS is not the waste, the extra cost, the monolithic nature of the bureaucracy, the rationing or even the scope it gives to social authoritarians like Abbott to try to curtail behaviour they disapprove of.

It is the fact that I am supposed to be grateful for it………

[40] ‘It is the fact that I am supposed to be grateful for it……… ‘ – yes, I think we should all be grateful to any system that provides universal health care (and its not just the NHS that does that, of course).

Surely you can at least identify with the likes of PJ O’Rourke?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2010/oct/30/pj-orourke-john-harris-interview

He said, ‘Political means could be used to prevent almost all deaths from childhood diarrhea. Diarrhea is spread by contaminated water. Public sanitation is, like personal security, national defense, and rule of law, one of the few valid reasons for politics to exist. Lowly, semicomic diarrhea kills 2,866,000 people a year worldwide, 2,474,000 of them children under the age of five. This is ten times the number of people who die from AIDS. But no one is wearing a brown ribbon on his tuxedo lapel at the Academy Awards or marching up the Mall in Washington carrying a sign reading DIARRHEA—IT CAN BE CONTAINED.
(from ‘All the trouble in the world’)

They came for the smokers. I wasn’t one, I said nothing.
They came for the drinkers. I wasn’t one, I said nothing.
They came for the fatties. I wasn’t one, I said nothing.
Then they came for me and there was no one to speak up for me.

@ 30 Cylux

Ah, hadn’t considered that Blackpool being a holiday destination might make a difference. Fair enough.

32: “The reason that per capita consumption of alcohol appears to have gone down is because there is a much larger proportion of the population that do not drink at all ( for religious and other reasons) in fact all the indicators of alcohol abuse I.e. are spiralling upwards”

Not true, as the MP is prefectly well aware. Or rather, the assertion isn’t firm enough to be either True or False.

As regards the NHS, what’s the real cost? Do current alcohol taxes cover the side-effects or not? If yes, then they don’t need to rise. If no, they do. That’s pretty much it isn’t it?.

I have an autoimmune disease and have a lot of hostpital and doctors appointments. Just recently i am asked every single time how many units of alchohol i drink each time and how many times a week. I drink in moderation as it interferes with my medication. Just the same i will pluck a figure out of the air like they do when they tell you how many units you shoulld drink each time, each week. I can’t be asked to work it out.

I resent this as i am way over the age of 21. Binge drinkers tend to be young and rarely go to the doctors. I don’t blame the doctors as they are obviously told to ask these questions.

@ 45 Lynne

You resent the doctors asking health-related questions? How are they supposed to help you otherwise?

@ 41 Lynne,

“I resent this as i am way over the age of 21″

And so you should resent it. Recently I witnessed a young woman of around 25 being ritually humiliated when she tried to buy a drink, and didn’t have her ‘papers’ to prove her age. Thanks to the likes of Abbott, adulthood is being transformed into an eternal childhood with an authoritarian state playing daddy to us all.

@ 47

“And so you should resent it. Recently I witnessed a young woman of around 25 being ritually humiliated when she tried to buy a drink, and didn’t have her ‘papers’ to prove her age. Thanks to the likes of Abbott, adulthood is being transformed into an eternal childhood with an authoritarian state playing daddy to us all.”

I see someone’s been hitting the melodrama hard this afternoon.

Assuming “ritual humiliation” is code for “was refused service”, what has this got to do with adults when they’re allowed to drink as long as they’re not dumb enough to leave their ID at home (they’re not papers, btw, most people use a card)? The relevant law prevents CHILDREN from drinking.

If you think this woman should have been served without her ID, you logically must think that a) servers are morally bound to risk serving a minor and getting a huge personal fine, or b) there should be no penalty for serving minors, which would in effect remove the age restrictions on booze.

Which is it, or is there a third option I’ve missed?

margin4error @ 34:

I’m not moralising. I’m simply saying that all drugs should be legalised and yet taxed according to their addictive potential, and that alcohol is a very addictive drug. “McDonald’s, rock climbing and fast cars” are not addictive in anything other than a weak or metaphorical sense, though I can see an argument for taxing junk food highly, too.

They are to busy waging false wars and globalisation and really do not care about the general public. why is alcohol legal in the first place? it does nothing but harm and kill, it is addictive and destructive. Its all just smoke and mirrors to keep us thinking that they care, like with tobacco. They have all the warning signs on the packets with the threatening pictures. ‘Tobacco contains Benzenine’ etc but I ask them this….. If you are so worried about all the toxic and poisonous chemicals in Tobacco then why do you put it in there? alcohol is the least of our worries though. New world order coming time for us to wake up and realise we are being controlled by a fraudulent banking system.

@ 50 conspiracy detective

“They are to busy waging false wars and globalisation and really do not care about the general public. why is alcohol legal in the first place? it does nothing but harm and kill, it is addictive and destructive.”

Um, some of us like drinking it. It’s nonsense to say it does nothing but harm and kill. It also tastes nice and leads to a pleasant state of mind.

“Its all just smoke and mirrors to keep us thinking that they care, like with tobacco. They have all the warning signs on the packets with the threatening pictures. ‘Tobacco contains Benzenine’ etc but I ask them this….. If you are so worried about all the toxic and poisonous chemicals in Tobacco then why do you put it in there?”

Who the hell are “they”? The people who keep tobacco and booze legal – the government – do not put anything into fags. That would be cigarette firms. And a lot of those dangerous things are in the tobacco naturally. Others are preservatives. You should have tried to answer your own question: obviously “they” have a reason for including these ingredients or they wouldn’t use them.

“alcohol is the least of our worries though. New world order coming time for us to wake up and realise we are being controlled by a fraudulent banking system.”

Aaaand you just veered off-topic. I can see you’re not so much a conspiracy detective as you are a good old-fashioned conspiracy theorist.

@ Chaise,

“I see someone’s been hitting the melodrama hard this afternoon.”

Actually, I’ve been gardening.

“If you think this woman should have been served without her ID, you logically must think that a) servers are morally bound to risk serving a minor and getting a huge personal fine, or b) there should be no penalty for serving minors, which would in effect remove the age restrictions on booze. Which is it, or is there a third option I’ve missed?”

The third option is to stop with the hysterical moral panic about drinking, and make the law more lenient, so that if a shop serves someone who looks 18 or over, but is actually younger, they are not risking such a disproportionate fine.

In the past, a blind eye was turned, which allowed young people to integrate themselves into the adult world, as long as they behaved and didn’t draw attention to themselves.

The argument that we should be able to drink whatever and whenever we like without any great financial or fiscal disincentive sounds very ‘liberal’: unfortunately, when we have a system of socialised medicine, the costs of binge drinking and alcohol abuse (like obesity) fall upon us all.Moreover, the costs of social disorder from binge drinking fall upon the public purse, too.

Alcohol tax raises gbp15bn a year. Even the most loony prohibitionists aren’t able to derive statistics to pretend pissed-up bunfights and stomach-pumps cost more than that.

I simply don’t believe Cylux here. I spent 15 years drinking in assorted parts of the UK, and never once saw a fight that wasn’t mutual.

And 100% agreed with Richard. It’d be far better to drop the Challenge 25 nonsense, accept that kids will get served sometimes, and that this really isn’t a problem or the end of the world.

@ 52 Richard

“The third option is to stop with the hysterical moral panic about drinking, and make the law more lenient, so that if a shop serves someone who looks 18 or over, but is actually younger, they are not risking such a disproportionate fine.”

I’m amenable to that in itself, but it still leaves you getting angry with shop staff because they don’t want to risk being fined, even if the fine is lower.

“In the past, a blind eye was turned, which allowed young people to integrate themselves into the adult world, as long as they behaved and didn’t draw attention to themselves.”

You could do this without creating a fines lottery for shop staff. For example, reduce the legal limit for less strong drink to 16, or bring back the system where 16 year olds are allowed to order beer or wine with a meal.

@ 53 john b

“I simply don’t believe Cylux here. I spent 15 years drinking in assorted parts of the UK, and never once saw a fight that wasn’t mutual.”

I’ve been punched in the face completely at random by someone who, from context, I assume was drinking. Basically I think his mate took umbrage at the gothiness of a guy in our group so they decided to deck us.

But I agree that most boozed-up fighting seems to happen between people who both want to fight, or at the very least are happy to trade insults that they must know are likely to lead to violence. There’s also a bad habit of people assuming that any violence committed while drinking must be caused by the drink. There were plenty of people at my secondary school who were perfectly capable of coming up with excuses to hit people. Hard to believe that those guys became decent human beings two years later, relapsing only when drunk.

@53 You’ve led a charmed life then. Of course far be it for me to point out that beating the fuck out of gay men wandering the streets alone after a nights drinking used to be a popular past time among the rougher sorts. Perhaps it was mutual because they looked offensively queer?

Regardless, pretending that unprovoked, unpredictable violence never occurs when people are heavily refreshed does no one any favours. It does.

Chaise

Just want to point out about Lynne – alcohol is not a cause or contributing factor to autoimune disease – at least there seems no suggestion that it is anywhere that I know.

As such – is this not a bit like asking some one with diabetes whether they are gay or not? This is a health matter, as there are a number of conditions generally more likely if some one is gay or straight (AIDS is still more prevelent among gay men, pregnancy more prevelance among heterosexual women).

or to put it another way…

“how are they supposed to help you otherwise?” is a stupid question and not at all in-keeping with your normally strong wider sense of context. Maybe our bin men should ask how our bed-springs are holding up? It is of course rubbish related, as we may need to dispose of a matress some time soon if they are getting a bit un-sprung.

John b

yep – us drinkers are massively subsidising the health costs of fat MPs who are not heavilly taxed on their over-eating and lack of exercise.

TONE

Thing is – addictive potential is a bit of a ridiculous thing to tax. Addiction is a very complicated thing that is no less applicable to a number of high fat foods and indeed to gambling which is not a biological stimulant or supressant at all. And this article isn’t about that. It’s a lot of moralising claptrap about binge drinking – a very different thing.

Some one can be addicted to drink, tobacco, caffeine and so on – without any major hindrance to their daily lives. If we are concerned about the NHS costs – then we should raise alcohol taxes to a level that matches the cost of alcohol consumption to the NHS (Sorry – I mean cut alcohol taxes to that level). But that has little to do with binge drinking.

Chaise

I’ve been punched in the face by some one who was drunk. I suspect he took umbrage at the girl he liked spending too much time glancing my way.

Of course what I suspect is hardly a basis for moralising about drink. It is a basis for him being dealt with by the authorities. After all, I definately was drunk – and I didn’t hit him.

@ 57 m4e

“Just want to point out about Lynne – alcohol is not a cause or contributing factor to autoimune disease – at least there seems no suggestion that it is anywhere that I know.

As such – is this not a bit like asking some one with diabetes whether they are gay or not?”

Alcohol can affect the safety and effectiveness of drug treatments, and might also account for symptoms that might otherwise be wrongly assumed to be part of the disease, leading to misdiagnosis (tiredness, weight gain etc.). I don’t know whether either of those apply in the autoimmune field, but you can hardly blame doctors for wanting a complete information profile.

Yes, I find it annoying when my GP periodically asks how much I drink and smoke and then provides me with the mindblowing revelation that these things are bad for me. But it’s not worth getting het up about.

““how are they supposed to help you otherwise?” is a stupid question and not at all in-keeping with your normally strong wider sense of context. Maybe our bin men should ask how our bed-springs are holding up?”

The relationship between alcohol consumption and health is a damn sight more direct and important than the relationship between bed springs and bin collection.

Chaise

Her condition is already diagnosed – so misdiagnosis would be quite something. And I suspect you are somewhat suspending your normally astute attention to context in suggesting that a doctor may want a full picture – since obviously no doctor ever has a full picture. Lynne’s account suggests that doctors previously felt they had a full enough picture without asking about her drinking habbits. We don’t expect to answer a hundred questions on family status, sexual activity, diet and so on every time we go to a GP for something routine, so why alcohol? If the reason we don’t ask about those other things is because to do so would be utterly wasteful and needlessly intrusive, why is alcohol the exception? It certainly isn’t the biggest health concern in the country. (fatness is).

And I know that you know that.

Which raises the question – why are we (and maybe you to an extent are a good example of this) becoming so inclined to moralise and intrude about drinking culture (under the pretence of medical interest)?

Alcoholism costs the NHS less than it raises in taxes. A lot less. So it’s not a “sustainability of the NHS” issue. Alcohol is legal – so it is not a criminality issue. Alcoholism has had known health consequences for hundreds of years, so its not an education issue.

Why is it?

I suspect it is because it is seen as a problem of the lower classes – and so the political classes are suitably distant from it that they can maintain a tone of moral disgust in a way that they can’t with fatness or with adultery or a great many other things that would once have served to provide a tone of moral superiority.

@ 60 M4E

“Her condition is already diagnosed – so misdiagnosis would be quite something. And I suspect you are somewhat suspending your normally astute attention to context in suggesting that a doctor may want a full picture – since obviously no doctor ever has a full picture.”

Really, we’re gonna do this? Did you honestly think that by “diagnosis” I meant the general fact of her having the disease, not ongoing assessment of the disease? And did you really think it was necessary to pull a perfection fallacy on the idea of a full picture?

This isn’t debate, it’s creating arguments for the hell of it.

“Lynne’s account suggests that doctors previously felt they had a full enough picture without asking about her drinking habbits.”

Medicine changes over time, and different doctors use different approaches. Maybe neither of those applies here but it’s enough to make me wary of leaping to judgement.

“We don’t expect to answer a hundred questions on family status, sexual activity, diet and so on every time we go to a GP for something routine, so why alcohol?”

I already answered that, so please don’t ignore my reply and repeat the question.

“If the reason we don’t ask about those other things is because to do so would be utterly wasteful and needlessly intrusive, why is alcohol the exception? It certainly isn’t the biggest health concern in the country. (fatness is).

And I know that you know that. ”

It’s not an exception. You think doctors never talk about diet? Mine did last time I went. Smoking comes up a lot too. Exercise can do.

“Which raises the question – why are we (and maybe you to an extent are a good example of this) becoming so inclined to moralise and intrude about drinking culture (under the pretence of medical interest)?”

I’m a terrible example of it. The only way I could spread the message of temperance is by being a dire warning.

“I suspect it is because it is seen as a problem of the lower classes – and so the political classes are suitably distant from it that they can maintain a tone of moral disgust in a way that they can’t with fatness or with adultery or a great many other things that would once have served to provide a tone of moral superiority.”

I’m sure that’s part of it. It’s an excuse to condemn young people, too.

Which raises the question – why are we (and maybe you to an extent are a good example of this) becoming so inclined to moralise and intrude about drinking culture (under the pretence of medical interest)?

Because ever since the personal was declared political the politicians have regarded your personal business as their professional business.

Chaise Guevara @61
I also have an auto-immune condition, when I go for a general health check up the nurse will usually ask me how much I drink, it’s just a matter of routine box ticking and utterly pointless. However when I see the Rheumatology consultant he doesn’t bother asking me damn fool questions like that, he is actually concerned with the symptoms and how the condition is progressing, not monitoring my general behaviour to see if I’m acting contrary to the latest moral panic. The argument that there is a need to check alcohol consumption because it can interfere with medication is, frankly, nonsense. This is just a catch all to cover the many different reactions that can – but usually don’t – occur with any medication, the consultant will know what things to monitor when first prescribing and , except in the case of diabetes, alcohol is unlikely to be one of them.

@ 63 Thornavis

“I also have an auto-immune condition, when I go for a general health check up the nurse will usually ask me how much I drink, it’s just a matter of routine box ticking and utterly pointless. However when I see the Rheumatology consultant he doesn’t bother asking me damn fool questions like that, he is actually concerned with the symptoms and how the condition is progressing, not monitoring my general behaviour to see if I’m acting contrary to the latest moral panic.”

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if you’re right. I just think it’s a mistake to mutter “bloody PC doctor” and automatically assume questions about alcohol are irrelevant.

“The argument that there is a need to check alcohol consumption because it can interfere with medication is, frankly, nonsense.”

You’ve got to be kidding me. You seriously think NO medicines interact poorly with alcohol?

“This is just a catch all to cover the many different reactions that can – but usually don’t – occur with any medication, the consultant will know what things to monitor when first prescribing and , except in the case of diabetes, alcohol is unlikely to be one of them.”

There are loads of medical conditions that are exacerbated by alcohol. There are also a handful that are improved by it. It’s not limited to diabetes.

@ Thornavis

Regarding alcohol interacting poorly with medicine, I looked up antibiotics because I always heard they didn’t mix. It turns out the general “no booze with antibiotics” rule is a myth but that specific antibiotics shouldn’t be mixed with alcohol (including one I was prescribed a while ago, which explains where I got that impression). http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/871.aspx?CategoryID=73&SubCategoryID=103

This tells us:

1) Yes, the dangers of booze here are exaggerated due to public confusion, establishment moralising, or both.
2) That some medicines DO combine poorly with booze, and given that the NHS isn’t claiming that you should always avoid mixing drink with antibiotics I think it qualifies as a reliable source.

Chaise

Yes of course there are potential problems with alcohol and some medications but I was referring specifically to auto-immune conditions, I should have made that clearer, in regard to Lynne’s original comment and the subsequent responses.

@ 66 Thornavis

Oh, ok. Cool.

Chaise

Now you are breaking down into individual sentances – which really isn’t needed. One example of some one now consistently asked an unrelated lifestyle question by her GP is just one example, but it is an example of something that fits with a growing dissaproval of that particular lifestyle choice. It is also an example of some one feeling afronted by this recent trend to attack that lifestyle issue, something not surprising given that drinking is a lifestyle choice many of us make quite hapilly and feel enriches our lives – and the intrusion of GPs is all the more disconcerting for some one who has an ongoing condition that means they face repeatedly than those of us who are basically well.

Also – I wasn’t suggesting you litterally go around moralising about drink. More that you, like many people, may be an example of how we have collectively become rather comfortable with that moralisation. I havn’t, but then I’m a bit of a purist and a zealot about drinking. I’ve always felt it is an attack on normal people by people who are out of touch with the people of this country to bemoan alcohol. Of course my experiences when young may have made me view things rather more zealously in that regard.

All of which comes back to the question of why it is alcohol is up for attack and why that attack invokes the NHS as a stick with which to beat us. I can’t restate often enough the hypocricy enough of a fat MP using the cost to the NHS of alcohol consumption as a means to attack drinking. You are right that there may also be a perception that it is the young who binge drink rather than binge eat – and MPs, being old, tus feel comfortable being critical.

But it needs to stop.

Alcohol is a big part of how we maintain our social circles, how we maintain our sanity in a disgustingly unfair world, how we conduct business day-to-day, and how we fall in love.

Also – as a sub-note – last time I was on anti-biotics, I drank on. I was fortunate enough to know it wasn’t an issue with those particular antibiotics so could ignore the silly anti-drink aspect to taking them. I have though, grown particularly annoyed at being asked for ID in this country of all countries when buying alcohol. I’m not a kid. No one could mistake a bearded and slightly swarthy old man like myself for a 17 year old. And even if they could, 17 is plenty old enough to buy a drink. It always was, and if we are going to start enforcing laws to the letter, we need to lower the drinking age to reflect that it is no longer largely a tool for landlords to keep youngsters who don’t know pub etiquete in check.

Shatterface

But why did we, the Great British public, allow that to happen? Why did we allow politicians to make the personal their business?

I suspect the reason is because we gave up the ideals of liberty and solidarity – and so became comfortable dissaproving of other people, ignoring that it would one day be us dissaproved of.

Alcohol is an interesting battleground for that – because as the Daily Mash says, attempts to reduce drinking have so far ammounted to nothing but firm evidence that our politcal class doesn’t actually meet or spend time with many people who actually live in this country.

@ 68 m4e

I can’t get my head round your dislike of my quoting sentences. It aids clarity.

Why are you still banging on about me possibly buying in to the whole anti-drinking thing? I don’t, and my output on relevant LC threads reflects that. It’s an ad hom that you’ve pulled out of thin air – and sticking “you may” in front of it doesn’t make it ok. Knock it off.

Shops and staff err on the side of caution when serving booze because the world does contain some people who look a lot older than they are (especially if they’re bearded, if anything your beard makes you higher-risk) and they get hit with huge fines if they’re caught in breach of the law. The fines are separately handed out to both the outlet and the individual, and they’re absolutely massive given that most people receiving them will be on minimum wage or thereabouts. We’re talking a couple of months’ salary here.

You may think that 17 is old enough to drink, but the law says otherwise. I agree the law should probably be changed. But in the meantime it’s churlish to get grumpy just because people are covering their backs. I mean, how hard is it to pop an ID card in your wallet? There’s a real sense of entitlement here: “shop staff should risk incurring four-figure fines because I can’t be arsed to get my driving licence out”.

Chaise

Braking down posts obscures the sentiment of those posts and focuses on specific wording of that sentiment. It rarely adds to a better discussion of the original article, which is not surprising given that it makes a poster’s comment the subject of conversation instead.

And the ad hom, whatever that even means in this context is that far from fronted by this intrusion into people’s personal rabbits, you’ve become comfortable enough with them not to criticise it, sell to reverse it or rail against the moralizing that lays behind it.

As I said before, the moralizing hypocrites that run our country have started enforcing the 18 age limit. As you say, the store managers don’t do it because they want to but because they are forced to by that moralizing hypocrisy. And as such we need to either return to a state in which such rules were a guidance, or drop the age for drinking. A 17 year old should be able to buy a pint down the pub after a hard days work on less than minimum wage.

Oh, and I will always get more than grumpy at people not using common sence. I’ve left whole trolleys of food on conveyor belts at supermarkets for being told I can’t have the bottle if wine to go with the dinner I I’m buying. After all, what 17 year old needs to buy ingredients to cook a lasagne?

Oh, and I don’t have a driving licence. Although I guess official ID cards would have solved that problem…

@ 71 m4e

“Braking down posts obscures the sentiment of those posts and focuses on specific wording of that sentiment. It rarely adds to a better discussion of the original article, which is not surprising given that it makes a poster’s comment the subject of conversation instead. ”

Actually, I find it helps because most people don’t communicate as clearly as they think they do. I’ve had loads of people answer “yes” or “no” to a comment that asks several questions; quoting at least reduces the likelihood of such confusion.

I also find it helps me arrange my thoughts and not skip over parts of people’s arguments by mistake.

“And the ad hom, whatever that even means in this context is that far from fronted by this intrusion into people’s personal rabbits, you’ve become comfortable enough with them not to criticise it, sell to reverse it or rail against the moralizing that lays behind it. ”

I absolutely love how you’ve invented a fictional character and declared it’s me. I do criticise it, do argue for it to be reversed and have been known to rant about the attitudes driving it. But by all means keep arguing with an opponent who lives only in your head. Just don’t expect me to stick around and accept your ridiculous accusations.

“As I said before, the moralizing hypocrites that run our country have started enforcing the 18 age limit. As you say, the store managers don’t do it because they want to but because they are forced to by that moralizing hypocrisy. And as such we need to either return to a state in which such rules were a guidance, or drop the age for drinking. A 17 year old should be able to buy a pint down the pub after a hard days work on less than minimum wage.”

No argument there, but if such rules are a guidance then it needs to be written into the law that serving booze to 16/17-year olds will not result in fines or prosecution unless it’s deemed to be done irresponsibly.

“Oh, and I will always get more than grumpy at people not using common sence.”

Ah, common sense, last refuge of someone who’s run out of arguments. I would call refusing to incur a personal £2,000 fine for no good reason pretty sensible. Maybe you can take that hit but most shopworkers can’t. No, what you’ve done here is confuse “common sense” with “whatever is most convenient for me”.

“I’ve left whole trolleys of food on conveyor belts at supermarkets for being told I can’t have the bottle if wine to go with the dinner I I’m buying. After all, what 17 year old needs to buy ingredients to cook a lasagne?”

Firstly, I’m not desperate to base policy off of your prejudices. A teenager cooking? Implausible!

Secondly, if shops get into the habit of this, teenagers would twig and cunningly buy food ingredients at the same time as booze to invoke it. I know I would have done.

Thirdly, you’ve revealed yourself as a rather nasty person. No doubt some shop worker had to clear that up, and some customers got held up while they did, just so you engage in your self-indulgent dramatics. If I was your local store owner I’d ban you. After you make your “stand”, do you call up the local paper and get photographed standing outside the store looking angry? http://apiln.blogspot.co.uk/

“Oh, and I don’t have a driving licence. Although I guess official ID cards would “have solved that problem…”

As would a Prove-It Card. Or you could just get a damn driving license. Don’t need to pass any tests to get a provisional one.

M4E/Chaise

As I said before, the moralizing hypocrites that run our country have started enforcing the 18 age limit. As you say, the store managers don’t do it because they want to but because they are forced to by that moralizing hypocrisy.

The point is that those who enjoy prohibiting the behaviour of others are encouraged by the climate of interference in our lives created by government and its acolytes.

I’m behind two youths in a supermarket carrying a crate of lager. First youth offers to pay and is asked for ID, which he produces. Second youth then asked for ID which he says doesn’t have with him.

Sale is refused by fat, Stalinist checkout operator on grounds that the first youth might be intending to share his beer with the second youth. Fat, Stalinist checkout operator then makes the mistake of trying to elicit pagar’s approval for her behaviour which, you will be unsurprised to hear, was not forthcoming.

Pagar communicates to fat Stalinist checkout operator his view of the mindset of fat Stalinist checkout operators and is subsequently ejected from supermarket minus shopping………………

@ 73 pagar

Yeah, either she’s a pumped-up moral guardian or the store has a stupid policy. Did you ask her if a middle-aged women would also be refused service for a bottle of wine if she had her kid in tow?

My favourite was a checkout worker who refused to serve my 18-year-old friend because he only had a provisional driving licence. Apparently you’re only allowed to drink if you’re driving…

Chaise

So you take some delight in breaking down and attacking specific points – but agree with the fact that this hypocritical moralising is wrong.

Why bother? What do you get out of doing so? We both seem to agree that this ludicrous moralising about how people live their lives is a growing issue in our society – and that the use of figures for the cost to the NHS is illiberal, damaging to the basic support of the NHS, and hypocrtical when presented by a fat MP.

So why the interest in me being a little selfish when out shopping? Why disregard for fostering a culture of people making sensible judgements of their own? Why the desire to mitigate my example by suggesting the use of a provisional driving license (which you then joke doesn’t work, bizarely) rather than recognise it as a sign of a problem we both agree exists and should be resolved?

I genuinely don’t understand.

Pagar

Stupid thing is – there’s nothing at all illegal about the customer with ID sharing beer with the customer who doesn’t have ID – unless that customer without ID was under five.

So the store has absolutely no grounds in terms of fines or risk of closure to engage in such a policy.

It is just moralising claptrap.

Which raises another question – when did private companies become our “moral” guardians?

@ 75 “So you take some delight in breaking down and attacking specific points – but agree with the fact that this hypocritical moralising is wrong.

Why bother? What do you get out of doing so?”

Um, what do YOU get out of arguing with ME? You are being really weird ATM, first complaining about the presentation of my posts (apparently too clear for your liking), then questioning my motives for, um, arguing on the internet. And that’s not to mention your obsession with lying about my opinions. That’s a hell of a lot of point-dodging when you add it all together.

You seem to be saying: “You agree with me on some stuff – why are you arguing about other stuff?!” Do I really have to explain how it’s possible to agree with someone about X but disagree about Y?

“We both seem to agree that this ludicrous moralising about how people live their lives is a growing issue in our society – and that the use of figures for the cost to the NHS is illiberal, damaging to the basic support of the NHS, and hypocrtical when presented by a fat MP. ”

Not sure where you go that. I’m a fence-sitter on vice taxes if only because they make it less likely that NHS services will be refused in future for people with “undeserving” lifestyles.

“So why the interest in me being a little selfish when out shopping?”

Well, bullies should be called out, if only because sometimes they’re generally decent people who don’t realise that they’re being bullies. I suspect that includes you. But TBH I probably would have let that slide if you weren’t going out of your way to piss me off in this thread by ad-homming me over and over again despite the fact that I keep pointing out that you’re talking bullshit.

Speaking of motivations, what the hell do you get out of that? Is “winning” so important that you’re prepared to lie about the whole conversation to convince yourself that you achieved a victory? Or are you just desperately hoping that other commenters will decide that you are a better authority than me on the contents of my own head?

“Why disregard for fostering a culture of people making sensible judgements of their own?”

I don’t know. Why do you support the BNP? Oh, look, leading questions that contain false accusations are annoying! Who knew?

“Why the desire to mitigate my example by suggesting the use of a provisional driving license (which you then joke doesn’t work, bizarely) rather than recognise it as a sign of a problem we both agree exists and should be resolved? ”

1) I said that ONE PERSON was stupid enough to think a provisional licence doesn’t count. If reality is such a mystery to you that you think all shop staff are the same person, there’s not much I can do to help you.

2) Because you’re not just talking about resolving the problem, you’re using it as an excuse to attack shop staff for being too selfish to take a £2,000 hit just because you can’t be arsed to get hold of an ID card – and bragging about how you bully them when they’re just doing their job.

Chaise

Thing is – I don’t get what stuff you are disagreeing with other than that you are disagreeing with people. You criticised Lynne for complaining about the intrusion in her life of a GP asking her unrelated drinking habbits – yet agree that the moralising about drink is wrong. You agree that the rules are silly but criticise people for complaining about instances when the rules are applied. You seem to agree that the drunken yobs attacking random passers by is a horror story rather than a basis for legislating on alcohol and punishing the innocent.

And yet, agreeing with me on all this and seemingly more – you are disagreeing with me.

For the record – winning, for me, would mean a grown up recognition by our political classes that alcohol is best not moralised about and that the NHS is not a stick to beat people with over their behaviour.

“lagers which had strength of 5% are now being sold at 4.8% – this staggering 0.2% is strength is mere lip service”

Lip service is what the lager does to me.

BTW a gradual decline in alcohol content of beer is what has been deemed successful as a way to reduce alcohol consumption in Sweden. I’m not convinced, but some people in Sweden are.

@28: “Is it hypocritical for clinically obese MPs to pontificate about the NHS cost of our alcoholism?”

Of course not. After all, I think it is not very likely that MPs will be burdening the public health care services about which they speak so much. I would be surprised if they did.

Instead, I’d expect that MPs have a specific health care plan provided by some other arrangement, perhaps a private clinic or something arranged by public bodies but effectively working like a private clinic. I understand that in the UK, there are similar arrangements for much less important things. Like having a private, subsidised pub for MPs.

After all, Ms. Abbott is known to have a similar relationship to public and private service regarding schools: speaks loudly for public schools, sends her own kid to a private one.

And this is not a problem specific to Britain, of course. What is good for the masses is not good for the political class. Anywhere. And suprisingly, both politicians and activists tell us that the solution for this is to give more power to the political class, by having higher alcohol taxes, higher fuel taxes, by having a financial market tax.

pjt

I’d agree with your sideways knock about the hypocricy of a political class using the NHS as an excuse to tell us what to do – when so many of them go private.

But in reality, if a fat MP keels over with a heart attack it will be NHS wards that they are rushed to by a state funded ambulance. Also, with Labour MPs, though Ms Abbott doesn’t like public services, many of them do indeed use the NHS and refuse to go private on principle. Indeed even our rather priveledged PM right now used the NHS for the care of his little boy.

Add in the vageries of the increasingly blurred line bwteen private and NHS care (same wards, same doctors, different contracts) – and it is all a burden on the same capacity over all.

So I tend to feel the hypocricy of fat politicians attacking drinkers over the cost to the NHS of drinking – remains real.

@ 78 m4e

“Thing is – I don’t get what stuff you are disagreeing with other than that you are disagreeing with people.”

I really don’t think I’ve been unclear but I’ll give it one more shot on the specific ones you mentioned.

“You criticised Lynne for complaining about the intrusion in her life of a GP asking her unrelated drinking habbits – yet agree that the moralising about drink is wrong.”

My criticism there was based on the fact that GPs asking about your drinking habits are not always moralising. Often they’re just trying to build up an accurate profile of your health, other times drinking may be directly relevant to whatever they’re treating you for. Lynne seemed to be working on the assumption that a GP talking about booze is automatically moralising and I’m saying that’s not always the case – and it’s a needlessly dangerous attitude to take.

“You agree that the rules are silly but criticise people for complaining about instances when the rules are applied.”

Because people on this thread are complaining about (and in your case bullying) shop staff, but they’re not the ones responsible. If you disagree with government policy on booze then fair enough and I’ve got your back, but don’t go and take it out on some poor sod at Tesco who’s just trying to do his job and is trapped between your hostility and the government’s threats of OTT penalties.

Chaise

So are you saying that the repeated asking a patient about alcohol consumption, which has no part in her ongoing condition, might not quite reasonably seem a little intrusive to said patient amid a background of moralising about drink? (Keep in mind, the patient herself does feel it is intrusive and said so in a discussion about the ongoing moralisation about alcohol consumption).

On your last comment I do in fact disagree wholeheartedly.

I never accept the “just doing my job” abdication of responsibility for one’s own actions and decisions. That said – I never bully anyone. I don’t rant and shout. I just walk away somewhat disgusted by a world in which people refuse to take responsibility for even the most obvious decisions in their every day lives.

That is hardly bullying.

@ 83 m4e

“So are you saying that the repeated asking a patient about alcohol consumption, which has no part in her ongoing condition, might not quite reasonably seem a little intrusive to said patient amid a background of moralising about drink?”

But she said that drinking interferes with her medication. Therefore it’s not surprising that the doctor would want to know how much she’s drinking: if the medication isn’t working as well as is hoped, the GP needs to know why.

“On your last comment I do in fact disagree wholeheartedly.

I never accept the “just doing my job” abdication of responsibility for one’s own actions and decisions.”

Firstly, refusing services to people who may be below 18 and can’t prove they’re not would generally be seen as the responsible action.

Secondly, while in theory I salute workers for showing independent thought and bending the rules when the rules are obviously stupid, I don’t see why the risk of getting huge fines and possibly losing their jobs should fall on their backs. It’s not like you’re in a group that is unfairly denied alcohol and needs the support of rebel checkout staff.

“That said – I never bully anyone. I don’t rant and shout. I just walk away somewhat disgusted by a world in which people refuse to take responsibility for even the most obvious decisions in their every day lives.

That is hardly bullying.”

“Bullying” may have been too strong a word, but there’s a power discrepency between shoppers and staff. In this case, you can “punish” them by dumping a load of unnecessary work on their shoulders – they can’t do anything similar to you. The main point, however, is that the situation is not their fault. They may even agree with you.

chaise

I completely disagree – why is it responsible to refuse alcohol to some one clearly over 18 just because they have no id? Risk averse maybe. But risk aversion to an extreme is not responsible at all. It is abdication of responsibility, something we as a society would do well to oppose.

And this disparity of power – should I point out that what I effectively did was leave some stuff owned by a store in that store when that store decided to act as my moral guardian, something I find rather offensive and have certainly never asked them to do.

In fairness they might have banned me. I never went back. I’d be perfectly happy for them to do so as the only tiny ammount of power I have in dealing with vast companies is to not give them my money and instead use a rival that hires staff I find less morally repugnant.

Chaise

Obviously I can’t speak for Lynne here but she did say that she doesn’t drink much anyway so it seems pointless to keep quizing her about her consumption of alcohol. Auto immune symptoms vary so much between patients that it would be very difficult to sort out noise from signal in determining how much, if any, effect alcohol was having on medication anyway. She like many of us has obviously taken responsibility for her treatment, in so far as she can, and is doing what she thinks necessary to mitigate any side effects but a large part of the medical profession and practically the whole of the political class has no truck now with the idea that we can take responsibility for our own lives and welfare.

@ 85 m4e

“completely disagree – why is it responsible to refuse alcohol to some one clearly over 18 just because they have no id? Risk averse maybe.”

I said it’s generally considered the responsible position, not that I think it responsible. By my lights, serving a 17 year old is neither responsible nor irresponsible. It’s neutral.

“But risk aversion to an extreme is not responsible at all. It is abdicattion of responsibility, something we as a society would do well to oppose. ”

It’s hardly “risk aversion to an extreme” to avoid losing your job and being hit with a £2,000 fine just because someone didn’t bring ID. It’s sensible. I still don’t know what planet you’re on where you think store clerks have a moral duty to shoulder this risk for your benefit.

And it’s not abdication of responsibility: what responsibility is there to be abdicated? Both you and the staff have a responsibility to yourselves here. If they don’t want to get fucked over they don’t serve people who might be underage. If you want to get beer you bring ID, and stop relying on the assumption that 17-year-olds can’t grow beards or cook.

“And this disparity of power – should I point out that what I effectively did was leave some stuff owned by a store in that store when that store decided to act as my moral guardian, something I find rather offensive and have certainly never asked them to do. ”

You didn’t mention anything in your story to indicate that the store decided to act as your moral guardian. Thus far it seems like they just sensibly protected themselves against legal consequences. Did they say they were refusing service for your benefit? I mean, if so, that would change my mind on the acceptability of dumping your shopping on them.

“In fairness they might have banned me. I never went back. I’d be perfectly happy for them to do so as the only tiny ammount of power I have in dealing with vast companies is to not give them my money and instead use a rival that hires staff I find less morally repugnant.”

Please note that I said there was a power disparity between you and store STAFF, not you and the companies themselves.

But I seriously don’t think you have a leg to stand on accusing the staff of being “morally repugnant” when you expect them to expose themselves to losing their job AND losing two month’s wages when you’re not prepared to spend £30 or whatever it costs for a driver’s licence. Can you not see how that sounds like a mindblowingly selfish double standard?

@ 86 Thornavis

TBH my main issue with Lynne’s post is that it sounded knee-jerk: “How DARE my doctor ask questions relevant to my health!”, especially given that she stated that alcohol consumption is relevant to her condition. I may have reacted knee-jerkily myself.+

I agree that large parts of government, plus lots of nosy little NGOs, stick their noses in where it’s not wanted when it comes to personal lifestyles. I’m watching Boardwalk Empire ATM and finding the Temperance League depressingly familiar. It’s harder to know how many GPs do the same because, IIRC, they are *told* to ask these questions when they’re not directly relevant and trot out lines advising you to “improve”.

I remember once I went to the doctor, she noticed on my record that I smoked, obviously couldn’t be arsed with preaching and just said “Look, shall I just tick the box saying that we’ve had the conversation about smoking?”