Burgers and chips next

[caddyman]

Having virtually dealt with smoking, Nanny State wipes her hands and turns her attention to booze...

The trouble with rolling over and letting the State rub your belly, is that it develops a taste for it.

Comments

[lapinenoireuk.livejournal.com]

We will fight them in the Offie, we will fight them in the Pub, we will never surrender.

Seriously though the Govt will be likely to go along with this in the name of public health but in the cause of revenue collection.

My answer - shoot the puritans!

[ladkyis.livejournal.com]

I agree that alcohol is a health risk but I don't think knee jerk reactions will do anything to reduce the number of people who drink. I don't think legislation will help either - I've seen the Untouchables - I do think that there should be an educational drive to knock alcohol off it's pedestal as far as the youf of today are concerned. I detest alcohol because it is insidious in its action people do not realise how little the daily intake required for them to be regarded as having an "alcohol problem". And everyone I have mentioned it to replies "oh I don't drink much, really".

Given a choice of being in a car driven by either a smoker or a drinker I know which one I see as the less dangerous

[invisible-al.livejournal.com]

Taxation will just increase smuggling, what they need to spend 20 years on a properly funded public health campaign. Part of the problem is that the industry has targeted itself at teenagers and no one else with money is pushing back against that.

[pauln.livejournal.com]

Taxation will just increase smuggling

Then of course we get in to the costs of policing the smugglers.

May I refer my Honourable Friends to the sordid history of Dr Oliver's Cat Sweat Scalp Tonic?

Government Agent: "0.7% increase in interceptions!"
Opus: "0.7% increase in profits!"

[caffeine-fairy.livejournal.com]

I guess I'm misreading - what I see here is a campaign for higher alcohol tax, not the gov. saying they're going to do it?

[caddyman.livejournal.com]

Three points:

a) This is largely how the anti tobacco movement started out: concerned groups requesting it be taxed to death to reduce consumption;

b) The Government ism already flagging up its concerns over binge drinking and alcohol consumption; and

c) Offered a morakl high ground for free to implement higher taxes on something already taxed to death, what Government would resist, especially one strapped for cash through incompetence?

[caffeine-fairy.livejournal.com]

a) This is largely how the anti tobacco movement started out: concerned groups requesting it be taxed to death to reduce consumption;

But the anti smoking lobby had two very strong arguments in their court - firstly, that although there is a level of safe alcohol consumption, (and small amounts can be beneficial), there is no safe level of smoking. Secondly, secondary smoking can be proved to directly kill people. Alcohol causes a lot of damage but it's harder to prove that it immediately damages other people who are chosing not to participate. This is slightly spurious reasoning (anyone who's been thumped by a drubken thug can tell you that), but IMO secondary smoking was a massive pressure - alcohol related violence doesn't seem to impact public opinion in the same way.

b) The Government is already flagging up its concerns over binge drinking and alcohol consumption;

The Government flags up its concerns over a lot of things. That doesn't neccessarily mean a change in the law, or that the higher tax campaign will be successful. But it's right for the government to display concern about social issues and it's right for people to campaign for what they believe in. I think you're conflating the two because you don't like the anti smoking legislation.

c) Offered a moral high ground for free to implement higher taxes on something already taxed to death, what Government would resist, especially one strapped for cash through incompetence?

If that reasoning worked, cannibis for MS sufferers would be legal and heavily taxed.

I'm not saying you're not right to be concerned (I think we should all be concerned about any government, all the time) but I think the situation here is different. Smokers have always been a minority and an unpopular one, and banning smoking in public places has a demonstrable benefit. A huge majority of people enjoy a drink and drink responsibly, and I think any campaign to stop them is going to be very quickly left out in the cold.

I'm rambling now, so I'll shut up ;o)

[jfs.livejournal.com]

Thanks Em - you pretty much covered everything that I wanted to say.

Loads of smokers I know bang on about civil liberties and nanny states, but I've yet to find one willing to admit that their liberty (being able to smoke in public) was more important than my liberty (not to have to come home stinking of smoke, or run the risk of developing cancer through secondary smoke).

[caddyman.livejournal.com]

Can't be talking about me; I stopped smoking 6 months back. That said, if someone wants to smoke, I don't see why there shouldn't be indoor places where they can go without affecting non smokers.

So many people argue the points they want to make rather than the point postulated, which is that Nanny is getting ready to handbag everyone for the sake of the minority.

[jfs.livejournal.com]

You're the one who brought up smoking in the first place, Bry - can't fault a discussion for digressing when you're the start of the digression.

And underlying Emma's and my response is a simple "We don't necessarily agree" but frankly, I'm not sure it's worth engaging with your arguement on a deeper level than that when you continue to use such emotively charged language - worthy of the tabloids at their best.

Nanny getting ready to handbag? That's the way to stimulate debate - immediately demonise anyone who disagrees with you.

[caddyman.livejournal.com]

I only mentioned smoking as a comparison about how these things develop, but it seemed to move from there to central stage, losing the central point about Nanny Statism.

Ah, if only demons really did carry handbags, they'd hardly be objects of terror.

Any road up, I expect you're right about the point of arguing the point here. It seems to be creeping into areas of touchiness on both sides that weren't intended in the initial post.

[jfs.livejournal.com]

Ah, if only demons really did carry handbags, they'd hardly be objects of terror.

*grin*

Margaret Thatcher ......

Sorry - my response this morning was far too brusque.

[caddyman.livejournal.com]

Margaret Thatcher ......

Ye Gods. I take it back; true terror indeed!

No probs, done it meself. ;-)

[caddyman.livejournal.com]

alcohol related violence doesn't seem to impact public opinion in the same way Neither did passive smoking, way back when. It will change.

I don't think I'm conflating the issues. Government, as you say, has the right to raise concerns. If a pressure group of the supposed great and good press for additional taxes, why should the Government deny them? They are already doing it, just not to the extent the pressure group wants.

There is a difference between legalising something and then taxing it to death and taxing something to death that is already legal. I don't follow you logic there, I'm afraid. If logic came into the equation, you could legalise cannabis for medical use and ban smoking products in their entirety.

I'm not sure that it's true to say that smokers have always been a minority and an unpopular one. That's certainly true of the past 15-20 years, but before that, I'm not so sure. The point is, we got to where we are because of a shift in perception brought about initially by a minority pressure group. It happens that they were right in that case, but the overall principle is dodgy.

As to the disliking anti-smoking legislation; I think it was heavy-handed mainly.

[fencingsculptor.livejournal.com]

or as Homer Simpson said:

"Ah, beer. The cause of and the solution to all of life's problems."

[davidt3001.livejournal.com]

So now would be a good time to invest in home brew futures, or is the Government going to regulate yeast and sugar?