And The Nanny State Is Really Taking The P!ss

[biffvernon]

The cost of alcohol abuse includes:

* domestic violence and child abuse
* road deaths and injuries
* other accidents
* reduced productivity
* public disorder and violence
* human misery and lost opportunities

Yes, that's the cost of alcohol abuse. The thing is that folk like me, who enjoy a drink or three, but don't abuse it, don't cause any of the things on that list. And we manage quite nicely, thank you, without 'help' from the Government.

I would prefer less legislation on all forms of drug taking, but more effort put into creating a society that did less substance abuse.

[clv101]

I would prefer less legislation on all forms of drug taking, but more effort put into creating a society that did less substance abuse.

I too would prefer a society of sensible people. Back in the real world I think we need far more draconian legislation on substance abuse.

[Adam1]

I agree Biff. As a fellow mild boozer I wouldn't want to to told what to do either. My (off the cuff) suggestions would not affect you or me, other than making our alcohol bills cost more (back to what they cost us in real terms two or three decades ago). At the moment, the government is hardly an innocent bystander. They are lobbied by the alcohol industry to make it easier for them to flog as much of their product as possible and to externalise as many of the costs as possible.

Reducing the number of outlets might be more of a pain, ok I'll revoke that suggestion!

* increasing supermarket prices
* reducing number of outlets
* regulating pub pricing to limit "happy hours", multi-buys etc.
* introducing continental style table service into pubs
* some sort of on-going campaign to change social acceptance of drunkenness

[RenewableCandy]

I once thought about the idea of a lifelong licence for alcohol: so it's not the premises but the buyer who's licenced. This because I like the odd drink (the odder the better ) but otoh I've seen at least one bloke completely transformed (from reasonable to raging animal) by just a couple of jars. It was evident that the jars weren't the problem, it was his body chemistry.

So off you troll to your GP at the age of 18 or so, have a health check, and collect your licence ('til 18 you can drink, but only with your parents or somesuch). If it later transpires you really can't handle it (trash yourself, wife or car, have to go on meds that aren't compatible, etc) you hand in your licence. The difference here being you don't have to faff about renewing it every year.

Really, the only drawback I can see is they'd be so much like ID cards, and of course there'd be a black market in fakes. Perhaps the best idea is to pull the licences of any premises that obviously sells to people who are already off their face.

[biffvernon]

I think we need far more draconian legislation on substance abuse.

A century of attempts in various countries shows that legislation doesn't work - unless you think that the sort of regime found in certain parts of the Middle East counts as 'working'.

If it harms none, do as you will.

[clv101]

If it harms none, do as you will.

Yeah that's the point, substance abuse harms plenty.

[biffvernon]

Indeed, but the restraint has to be from within, personal, individual and voluntary. If imposed by outside agencies such as governments or priesthoods the law of unintendered consequences produces criminality from the mafia to street crime and the dysfunctionality of entire nation states.

[21st_century_caveman]

Back in the real world I think we need far more draconian legislation on substance abuse.

Perhaps a system like the one they have in United Arab Emirates?
If so, be careful about that bread roll you had for breakfast.

Tourists warned of UAE drug laws

Keith Brown and his wife had been on their way from London to Ethiopia when they were stopped and searched at Dubai airport.

At first customs officers found nothing, but then a roll-up cigarette was spotted caught in the tread of his shoe.

The 43-year-old, from Middlesex, was charged with possession of 0.003g of cannabis and was sentenced to four years in prison.

Meanwhile, a Swiss national is serving a four-year jail term after three poppy seeds from a bread roll he ate at Heathrow airport were found on his clothes.

Yeah that's the point, substance abuse harms plenty.

The operative word being abuse, responsible use being a victim less crime.



That just shows how irrational the law is in this country regarding substances. Then again I think many governments find that draconian drug laws are a convenient way of getting rid of surplus people, especially in the US.

[biffvernon]

Interesting graph.

I notice oil and coal aren't included yet they are the two substances most likelly to send us to Olduvai.

[stumuz]

Back in the real world I think we need far more draconian legislation on substance abuse.

You big girl.

[gug]

If it harms none, do as you will.

Yeah that's the point, substance abuse harms plenty.

The disease crime and misery caused by, say, for example, heroin, is entirely caused by its illegality.

Desperate people commit crime to pay vast sums (to real criminals) to buy adulterated muck injected in bad surroundings (usually abject poverty due to the unnecessary lifestyle forced upon them by the illegality).

I'm not suggesting that it be sold and marketed (even though, "Heroin" is actually a brand name - go figure). But why cant addicts get diamorphine on prescription. What they actually get (if and when they're helped) is Methadone. Methadone overdose has killed more addicts than heroin overdose. In fact, despite reports in the press, its actually quite hard to overdose (and die) on heroin (assuming that you know the "strength" of the heroin being taken. In fact apparently, assuming controlled conditions, if you take twice the dose required, you run the risk of becoming slightly drowsy!

During the first world war, so many soldiers were using heroin, its was known as the english disease. Was crime or death from heroin a problem in those days. nope. Did these addicts hold down jobs and keep families together, yep.

And believe me, I dont use any drugs, i even rarely drink, so I dont have any weird or rosy views on drugs, but drug addiction is a health issue. Trouble is, its treated as a legal issue, and the result is that society *suffers*

just my 0.02 eu.

[biffvernon]

The disease crime and misery caused by, say, for example, heroin, is entirely caused by its illegality.

I wouldn't go quite as far as 'entirely', but there is much truth in what you say.

[Adam1]

Indeed, but the restraint has to be from within, personal, individual and voluntary. If imposed by outside agencies such as governments or priesthoods the law of unintended consequences produces criminality from the mafia to street crime and the dysfunctionality of entire nation states.

I agree that restraint has to become from within, not least for practical reasons: it has proved impossible to impose behaviour change in this area; even in the Middle East, it doesn't work entirely.

Recognising that restraint has to come from within doesn't mean that governments don't have a role in providing the right framework of incentives and disincentives. In this respect, the government's alcohol policy response needs to mirror the philosophy of TEQs: a framework that reduces incentives to unwanted behaviour (that is damaging and costly to society). TEQs won't work well if no other specific measures are taken and all the responsibility for change is dumped on the individual. National level changes are needed too, in order to support the efforts of individuals (part of common purpose). Likewise with alcohol abuse, if national policy actively encourages abuse - e.g. allowing outlets in socially stressed areas selling very cheap and plentiful alcohol - all the responsibility is left with the individual show restraint.

If the French, Germans, Italians and Spanish can do it, there's no reason why the Brits, Irish and Norwegians can't.

[RevdTess]

Seems to me that the two tenable defendable positions are complete prohibition of all intoxicants (incl alcohol and nicotine) or the complete legalisation and regulation of all intoxicants.

I don't know about anyone else but I find it harder to imagine the outcome of complete legalisation than the outcome of prohibition. This possibly makes it the more difficult choice to take. Nevertheless I find it hard to see any rationale for the differentiation between legal alcohol and tobacco in regulated shops and pubs vs illegal 'drugs'.

Would it be so bad if there were legalised 'public houses' for crack consumption? Why is it different to public houses for alcohol consumption? That's a serious question by the way. I'd be interested to know if there's any convincing argument for alcohol to be treated differently to other drugs.

Vigorous prohibition (of drugs or alcohol) has not as far as I can see solved anything except perhaps limiting the numbers who ever try the drug (and even that's an assumption on my part). But a large part of the problem with any addiction comes from the high cost of obtaining supplies of your particular poison. When your substance of choice is illegal this cost skyrockets and drives people to crime, expanding the damage from a personal impact to a societal one.

Imagine if the highly addictive nicotine was so expensive it required addicts to commit crime to support the habit? Isn't this what prohibition calls for? Would this help or harm society? Would nicotine addicts slip into crime if they had to get their fix on an increasingly expensive black market? Would it become a 'gateway drug' ?

I don't have the evidence to take a view between the two positions: ban alcohol and nicotine, or legalise everything else. Intuitively I swing towards the libertarian rather than authoritarian view on the grand societal scale, with prohibition only really sustainable in small groups or communities where everyone knows each other and there is consensus against intoxicants and an ability and willingness to banish those who refuse to conform.

[leroy]

Queare: To what extent is J S Mills 'Harm Principle' relevant to the instance of drug takers? Discuss. Wow, I'm back in Jurisprudence class.

In practical terms, I think that alcohol could be made more expensive to limit consumption - The press keep going on about ?4 a pint being on the horizon, which to my mind would be no bad thing. An all-out ban would lead to Al Capone territory - prohibition was a massive force in establishing organised crime in America.

I have to say that working in criminal justice really opened my eyes as to the massive amounts of damage and pain caused by alcohol abuse. Not just trashed city centres on Sunday morning - I underwent training in dealing with domestic violence and rape counseling, and was amazed how few of these crimes were committed by the sober. I have read thousands of statements of DV survivors, and cannot recall one where the accused was not pissed.

Rape is another really tricky one - guilt in English criminal law is dependent on 'reasonable and honest belief' in consent on the part of the accused. Most accused parties, and most complainants, are wasted at the time of the event, and convictions to a standard of proof 'beyond all reasonable doubt' is rarely achieved, thus the vast and increasing majority walk free. The 2003 Sexual Offences Act has reversed the burden of proof in cases where the defendant is drunk, so that he must prove his belief in consent beyond all reasonable doubt in order to escape a finding of intention. A good move overall but a real piece of jurisprudential contortion which has real implications for due process.

Overall, I think that being able to buy 8 cans of premium strength lager for a fiver is bad news - the benefit of 'good value' for moderate consumers cannot make legitimate the risks of encouraging alcohol addiction and abuse. I go to AA, and don't really hold with JS Mill's idea that any kind of self-abuse is fine if it doesn't harm others - which I imagine is a near-impossible circumstance when one considers costs to the NHS, property damage, loss of productivity to the national economy, crime to get cash, pain to caused to relatives &tc. Addiction is an illness and people require support. Pricey beer then - mind you cost won't stop the most addicted, and kiddies in the park already buy Es because they are half the price of a can of cider. Oh dear oh dear.

The suggestion that crack cocaine should be legalised, I imagine, can only be made by those who don't have any first hand experience of crack junkies. I've been mugged by a couple, and threatened with a dirty needle, and the idea of someone who is that messed up by a drug being able to hold down a job and be a respectable member of the community if they could only buy their rocks at the newsagent is a joke. I'm with clv101 on the draconian laws on this one.