People shouldn't need to 'prove' something which is blindingly obvious
Whether speeding is going up or down, the existence of laws and punishments governing it, obviously keeps a lid on it.
Cut-price supermarket booze to be banned to stamp out binge drinking
- Thread starter Muffin`
- Start date
People shouldn't need to 'prove' something which is blindingly obvious
Whether speeding is going up or down, the existence of laws and punishments governing it, obviously keeps a lid on it.
not being in control of your actions, not remembering what on earth happened in the night while wasted, not having a great morning/day afterwards is fun?
while having a drink and being merry is fun, being wasted is actually rather pointless. the process of getting to a wasted state can be fun.
People shouldn't need to 'prove' something which is blindingly obvious
Whether speeding is going up or down, the existence of laws and punishments governing it, obviously keeps a lid on it.
Is it blindlingly obvious? if so surely someone can pull the stats on it?
Are the amount of speeding fines going down?
Using OcUK as an example, the amount of people posting 'Ive been flashed' / 'have i been caught' certainly shows that its not going down!
oh GTFO. Have you got an answer for anything else or are you just going to focus on how "silly" my lack of figures is.
Seriously. Get your head out of the sand. "Oh i cant see it so it doesnt exist!"
No never..
head out of sand? i cant see it some im asking you to backup something that you said. Im asking you to show me... but you cant or wont.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
People can be and are treated differently all the time. Binge drinking is a problem, not drinking per se and it would help to remember that point, just like most things in moderation being acceptable.
Are you a fan of irony perchance? Your first post relates to cannabis and how it shouldn't be illegal when it isn't as damaging as alcohol, alcohol in moderation isn't damaging - cannabis, like cigarettes are damaging if taken 'correctly' (I'm ignoring consumption in food for the moment).
Im not asking you to ban alcohol so your car example is moot. However, i will respond to it with:
"No but you can enforce speed limits and fine people when they defy them. ths reducing the number of people who speed" (regardless of how much it is reduced)
You can increase the cost of alcohol, thus reducing the amount of people who can afford to take it to extremes.
Guns dont kill people, people do. But why give them guns in the first place?
Perhaps increasing the price would reduce the number who could drink alcohol or perhaps you'd just drive it underground to less reputable sources, a minor version of America's prohibition if you will.
I know they are. I made that point with the very brief and unexplained Muslim example. Im trying not to ramble off topic, which im pront to doing.
I didnt actually say it shouldn't be illegal. i was comparing an illegal substance to a legal one, not saying that they should be swapped, or similar. I've never had cannabis and it doesnt interest me. I'm just making a point.
Indeed, i have no doubt, hence where i bracketed ignoring smuggling for the cannabis thing. I'm not saying increasing the price is the answer to the problem, i'm saying i dont see what's wrong with increasing the price.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 3,371
- Location
- Hell!! \m/
Ok lets look at it like this.
We both (you and i) view alcohol in the same manner. i dont really see the point. We are effectively arguing for the same thing, yet you're picking apart my arguments anyway. Says to me, you dont really care about what the argument is, you just want to argue. Which is fine, but i'm not going to partake in it.
If you did actually have an argument for the case in hand, you wouldn't still be focusing on 1 example that can be considered using common sense, rather than hard figures. You'd be able to use your common sense to look around that hard figure requirement. You'd possibly even, at the very least, be able to apply your same logic to every other example in the thread... but you wont. you'll just keep digging at that one to bait me into some debate to make me look silly, or you look clever. Given your grammar and reluctance to engage, as mentioned, in related subjects other than speeding drivers, i'm guessing it's the former.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 3,371
- Location
- Hell!! \m/
At the end of the day, it's what we are known for being booze britain. It's been a problem for years and there's little control over it, just arrest people who cause trouble or start fights that way they can tackle the minority of drunk dangerousness.
Putting up prices is the excuse for more money and it's unfair on everyone else, kids will still booze, it's unfair to say because they are young, they are broke.
Putting the age up will mean people 18-21 will drink on the street or at home, it takes away fun and safty.
Illict drugs might even be used more because of this.
Just arrest the buggers that run riots, plently of people can get wasted without causing harm to others.
Putting up prices is the excuse for more money and it's unfair on everyone else, kids will still booze, it's unfair to say because they are young, they are broke.
Putting the age up will mean people 18-21 will drink on the street or at home, it takes away fun and safty.
Illict drugs might even be used more because of this.
Just arrest the buggers that run riots, plently of people can get wasted without causing harm to others.
Im not asking you to ban alcohol so your car example is moot. However, i will respond to it with:
"No but you can enforce speed limits and fine people when they defy them. ths reducing the number of people who speed" (regardless of how much it is reduced)
You can increase the cost of alcohol, thus reducing the amount of people who can afford to take it to extremes.
Guns dont kill people, people do. But why give them guns in the first place?
So you should increase the cost of alcohol so only people in a certain part of society can afford it? That really will stir the hornets nest more then just plain old banning it. And as has been pointed out, sending it underground where lack of regulation and taxation will cause more issues then it will solve.
I am for taxation (but not tax on Duty which is frankly retarded but that’s separate) it's a luxury to raise revenue for the government, suddenly doubling it under the banner of something else is fraud, kind of like CO2, so they'll have some practise how to get it right this time.
Who is the long term health care issue I'm not following? I thought Obesity and Cancer caused by tobacco was the long term issue with a bit of dementia to break the back of the NHS.
Yes it's all agreed that on a Friday and Saturday night hospitals are over run with people who have drunk themselves into a state, but that’s what, a few hundred? Out of how many thousands out on a Friday and Saturday night?
What do you mean 'do what they want'? Who?
You say you cannot treat some different to others so are the people at the lower end of the disposable income bracket not being treated differently to those with a high percentage because of increased taxation? Should it not be based on your income to be absolutely fair?
But we are about to be come victims, because the minority of people go out and get plastered and then cause problems for everyone. If the vast majority did it, we really would have issues on the street, then you can say it’s a majority issues. Few thousand drunken people on a rage verses 100 police officers? No it's isolated cases.
The increased taxation will solve the 1% deficit of the countries GDP that the EU is getting arsey about, along with the 10p Tax rebate, War and NHS debt they're in. Another nail in the coffin of 'New Labour'.
Last edited:
Looks like someone has never lived.
not lived? used to spend far too much on drink far too often. also worked the doors for years and other security work that put me into contact with drink and drug affected people all the time.
When you reach the point of being wasted, what good is it?
No intention of making you look silly or making me look good, you made a point and I questioned you about it. Rather than saying 'no i cant prove it' you seem to think that common sense would say less people speed. Well common sense would say people wouldnt get wasted, or speed, or in some cases do both at the same time! But clearly they do.