Alcohol, poverty and Scotland

[Nearly Sane]

Presumably his case is that it's unjust to financially penalise the responsible many for the actions of an irresponsible few.

I once read somewhere that 70% of the adult UK population drinks alcohol. That raw figure obviously includes everybody from the tanked-up and aggressive thugs and vandals in city centres to the old ladies who have a Baileys on Christmas afternoon and every point between. However, there are vastly many more of the latter than the former. So, if education works, the point stands: why screw the sensible majority as a means of getting at a senseless minority?

no, it's a false dichotomy. The answer may be more restrictions, note ad_o agrees with some restriction, and better education.

[Shaker]

Does restriction actually work? Has it ever? Alcohol is already restricted: yet there are problem drinkers, including amongst those who, given their age, are supposed to be restricted already. Throwing still more restrictions at the issue strikes me as a fair example of that saying attributed to Einstein (but never actually traced to him) that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result.

[Nearly Sane]

Does restriction actually work? Has it ever? Alcohol is already restricted: yet there are problem drinkers, including amongst those who, given their age, are supposed to be restricted already. Throwing still more restrictions at the issue strikes me as a fair example of that saying attributed to Einstein (but never actually traced to him) that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result.

Again this seems simplistic in saying that because something doesn't work absolutely then only extremes are the choices.

[Shaker]

Doesn't seem thst simplistic to me.

Remember that this is an evidence-based argument - we don't need to guess, we can look at the world today and back into the past and see that when something (anything; not just alcohol) is restricted, up to and including the ultimate restriction of supposed total prohibition, it not only doesn't remove the desire for the prohibited thing, it may well increase it and cause a whole host of unintended and unwanted knock-on effects beside. (Organised crime in the Prohibition era being a prime example). Human nature makes it so - nitimur in vetitum.

[Nearly Sane]

Doesn't seem thst simplistic to me.

Remember that this is an evidence-based argument - we don't need to guess, we can look at the world today and back into the past and see that when something (anything; not just alcohol) is restricted, up to and including the ultimate restriction of supposed total prohibition, it not only doesn't remove the desire for the prohibited thing, it may well increase it and cause a whole host of unintended and unwanted knock-on effects beside. (Organised crime in the Prohibition era being a prime example). Human nature makes it so - nitimur in vetitum.

Using terms such as 'it may well increase it' undermines your argument that this is evidence based, and again is falling into the simplistic dichotomy of no restriction vs complete restriction.  You are also arguing against a strawman since I have neither proposed total restriction nor stated that it would remove the desire for alcohol.

[Shaker]

Using terms such as 'it may well increase it' undermines your argument that thus us evidence based

No. Whether the desire for the forbidden fruit is decreased, increased or remains the same is amenable to empirical evidence. Prohibition-era USA saw a vast surge in organised crime because people wanted to continue to enjoy a substance subsequently made illegal. Contrariwise, a few years ago Portugal decriminalised all recreational drugs and started treating hard-core addiction as a medical problem to be treated and not a moral failing to be punished. Not only has addiction plummeted, but use of all drugs (whether deemed 'hard' or 'soft') has likewise.

You are also arguing against a strawman since I have neither proposed total restriction nor stated that it would remove the desire for alcohol.

No, but you have said that more restriction on top of the restrictions already in place may be an answer, and I've used examples to show why that stands little chance of working. If the restrictions already in place aren't working, why would more restrictions work and at which particular point would it be deemed reasonable to say: "Let's stop here - we've piled one restriction on top of another and this obviously isn't working"?

[Nearly Sane]

No. Whether the desire for the forbidden fruit is decreased, increased or remains the same is amenable to empirical evidence. Prohibition-era USA saw a vast surge in organised crime because people wanted to continue to enjoy a substance subsequently made illegal. Contrariwise, a few years ago Portugal decriminalised all recreational drugs and started treating hard-core addiction as a medical problem to be treated and not a moral failing to be punished. Not only has addiction plummeted, but use of all drugs (whether deemed 'hard' or 'soft') has likewise.

I haven't denied it is amenable to empirical evidence but a statement that 'it may well increase it' isn't emorirical evidence p, it is simply assertion. Again you seem to want to use the strawman about what I am discussing, and oddly editing out my comment that it was a strawman.

And absolutely I agree about Portugal but decriminalisation is not a removal of all restrictions. The supply of alcohol in this country is vastly less restricted than drugs are in Portugal by them simply being decriminalised and yet we still have problems. The supply of alcohol in this country is less restricted than previously and still there had been an increase, followed by what may be a decrease in youth drinking. Suggesting that there are only the two extremes is simplistic.

[Bubbles]

So you think it should be the preserve of the rich.

People will go back to making it n the bath 🍹😜

[Bubbles]

I don't mind being merry or a bit drunk, provided I can walk in a straightish line 😁

What I try and avoid is what a lot of us did when younger, whirly pit syndrome.

Nothing worse 😉

Cheers! 🍷

[Walter]

What is pleasurable about getting drunk, and ending up with a hangover or worse?

I'm one of the fortunate ones Floo, I don't get hangovers, I never sober up!!!! 

[Robbie]

I don't mind being merry or a bit drunk, provided I can walk in a straightish line 😁

What I try and avoid is what a lot of us did when younger, whirly pit syndrome.

Nothing worse 😉

Cheers! 🍷

  I remember trying very hard to walk straight & not look drunk, also speak very slowly and clearly.
Whirly pit syndrome! Don't remind me.

[Robbie]

The people who have a problem buy their booze from the local Moderator: content removed who got a van load cheap from Estonia.

Who is the "Moderator: content removed" (funny name,obviously a foreigner), and does he come to the UK?

[Sebastian Toe]

I remember trying very hard to walk straight & not look drunk, also speak very slowly and clearly.
Whirly pit syndrome! Don't remind me.

I recall once, whilst in the chippy on the way home after a few shandies, I couldn't quite understand that despite me standing perfectly still, the floor persisted in jumping up and smacking me in the face! 
They wouldn't serve me either! 

I ended up getting a kebab further down the road. They didn't care who they served. 

[Shaker]

I ended up getting a kebab further down the road. They didn't care who they served. 

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away I'm pretty sure I used to go there too. Or somewhere very like it 

[Robbie]

Did you lose your kebab on the walk home?

Seeing carrots (liquorice allsorts once!) swimming around in the bottom of the pan is something I remember.

[Sebastian Toe]

Did you lose your kebab on the walk home?

No. It seems that it turned out to be a handy pillow!
Well that's why I think I woke up with it under my face!