And The Nanny State Is Really Taking The P!ss

[RenewableCandy]

it would be nice of the government to actually divert some of the money it wastes on condescending, lowest common denominator advertising "drinking makes you do stupid things" and other such obvious messages, into doing something about the root cause of the binge drinking problems.

we have a society that knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing -
.....
what we are reaping now is what we (in general) have sown by shopping at tesco and participating in the great race to the bottom competition orgy... every little helps eh! I am sure a lot of the things I have done in the past have somehow contributed too (although you have to drag me kicking and screaming into the supermarket!), I don't for one minute think I am blame free!

apologies for the outburst. hope it made some sense.

That is a class Rant and I want to frame it and put it on show somewhere.

People who are starting out in adult life these days are kind of demoralised by the fact that 'we' (our society) don't seem to have a place to offer them, where they can take part and be productive with some pride in what they do.

In more recent times buying a house for the first time was sort of a substitute for that, but now even that option isn't available because of the combo of high house-prices and student debt.

Now it seems the only visible transition to adulthood experienced by most people is, getting a driving licence and getting mobile. As Colin Powell once said, "This is not an optimal situation"...

[leroy]

to those who think holding down a job and Herculean drug-taking are mutually exclusive, a trip to pretty much any part of the media industry should set you straight on that one

This is a good point. My brother works in advertising/new media and there is certainly massive cocktail and cocaine consumption by some - mind you my bro doesn't really even drink and has never tried a cigarette. Coke has become much cheaper over the last ten years and is a great complement to the kind of lifestyle that some people aspire to - ie talking lots of shite in wanky bars. The misery experienced by many rural Columbians in order to facilitate this idiocy always strikes me as an ugly business. I don't know about widespread crack and heroin abuse in 'nu meedja' circles though - it is these that I was referring to in my previous post.

[stumuz]

Well, well we are all feeling a tadge gloomy aren?t we?

The last few posts started out very well with references to Mills harm principles but just went downhill after that into chronic self pity, the worlds crap and the young cannot become adults.

Let me try to cheer you up and remind you how fantastic the world is, the tremendous opportunity everyone in this country has and why I think, a lot of the previous posters have got it very wrong.

First, Mills harm principle. The jurisprudential question which arises is should the state interfere with a persons choice of health or life. Obviously the answer is no, as my health or life is for me to decide and no one else. However what if my freedom to injure my health causes harm to others? The answer is so simple that a lot of people have lost sight of it. There are a plethora of laws which allow you to protect your person from someone who is enjoying ruining their health. Someone threatening you with a needle whilst walking home, simple, you are lawfully allowed to do robustly what is necessary to protect yourself, including killing them if that is necessary. A salient example was the time I was in a restaurant years before the smoking ban when the chap at the next table started to light up. I asked him to put it out. He refused saying that it was lawful to smoke on the premises and it was an attack on his liberty. I said that smoking was a known cause of cancer and was injurious to my health, in which case I was lawfully entitled to use whatever means necessary to extinguish his cigarette and protect myself. He kindly put it out.

So the law will protect anyone whom cares to use it to avoid being harmed by those whom are free to harm themselves. The exception to this is those persons who cannot protect themselves. The weak or the infirm. If you are walking home, are threatened and you cannot or will not stand up for yourself, then you must allow yourself to be put into a class of persons who need extra protection, but the remedies for providing this extra protection should not be cast on society as a whole but should be borne by the special class i.e. do not put up taxation on alcohol etc but refrain from going into city centres on the weekends.

Now, we move to the worlds crap bit.The country in which I live according to some posters is a ?tescopoly? or where the only jobs are low paid ?asda? type jobs being run by nasty little people with complete control over our lives is just ridiculous. We have choices that many countries can only dream of. If you do not want to do these jobs do not do them. We have basic levels of subsistence which guarantees no one starves. If you want to do what my brother in law did and pack it all in ( job, no savings) become a hippy from the age of18- 32 ,travel, impregnate multifarious women and generally live a carefree existence then you can. Try doing it in North Korea and see if it works. It is only in such a fantastic country as this that you get the choice. If you are of the opinion that we are being run by evil capitalists, then again you have the choice of becoming one. The market economy of the UK has delivered standards of living my Grandparents could only dream about, it is a good system and I hope it carries on for many years.

The young cannot become adults.How anyone can say the young are demoralised because ?society? does not offer them a place. How can anyone speak on behalf of the ?young?? they are such individuals you could not get close to speaking on behalf of them. Most of the students whom have student debt had the choice to study or work. No one put a gun to their head. Why should the students not pay for their degree, no one ever paid for my degrees. The students I know (my daughter is a first year) are already clubbing together their savings from work to buy a house in the university town, to subsidise their own living expenses and to have an investment when they graduate. I am so glad they are not the new bleating classes who view the world through universal rights and equality, but rather just get on with living in a market economy and using it to their advantage.

So do not whinge when things are not going your way, you have the choice to alter your position. If you do not do so then there must be some happiness in your present situation.

I may have changed my mind about this thread now as I have got to the end, maybe it is a microcosm of society post PO. There will be people who prosper, there will be people who work hard because it brings slightly better benefits than living in penury and there will be those who complain incessantly about everything.

[emordnilap]

Throw out the tv.

[chubbygristle]

We have choices that many countries can only dream of. If you do not want to do these jobs do not do them. We have basic levels of subsistence which guarantees no one starves. If you want to do what my brother in law did and pack it all in ( job, no savings) become a hippy from the age of18- 32 ,travel, impregnate multifarious women and generally live a carefree existence then you can. Try doing it in North Korea and see if it works. It is only in such a fantastic country as this that you get the choice. If you are of the opinion that we are being run by evil capitalists, then again you have the choice of becoming one. The market economy of the UK has delivered standards of living my Grandparents could only dream about, it is a good system and I hope it carries on for many years.

The point was that there is little option for a lot of people but TO do these crap jobs because the alternatives have been removed by the unregulated expansion of the mega-business in most areas [1] . Of course everyone has the choice not to do these jobs but unfortunately the changes required on their part to do so render this option unthinkable. They is always the option for people to re-skill, train themselves up etc but not everyone has the means to do so.

Yes, we have basic levels of support to ensure no one staves, but we have a system in place which will force [2] every able bodied person back into work - work which in the whole has been debased by such big business and will tend to lead to such boredom, misery and tedium behind the drinking and drugs that have been discussed above.

Unless you are to choose the option of completely dropping out (and I'd like to see how this can be done properly - i.e. who is going to own the land on which you live. Is there any common land near by which will allow you to grow your own food to sustain yourself and have composting toilets and rainwater collection where the local council isn't going to come at you for doing so)? If you are not going to do something like this you will always require money for council tax, food etc.. all of which requires some kind of income.

And the argument of if you don't like capitalists then you have the option to become one. Great. If the country suddenly became over run by murderers it'd be ok because you'd have the chance to become one...

The market economy has delivered greater opportunities that previous generations by stealing from the capital of generations to come, by detracting from the livelihoods of people in other lands and by setting up a ponzi scheme designed to benefit selfish greedy Tory types and promote such behaviour. If that?s something to be proud of than yay capitalism!


[1] I am not saying that all independent business has been completely destroyed everywhere. This is just a general trend.

[2] if they intend to receive such guaranteed support so as not to starve etc..

[RenewableCandy]

Stumuz you might have got me wrong there. I am not young and whingeing, I am older and looking at today's younger people and the various problems which they have to deal with, which I did not have to. Chief of which is student debt. No-one puts a gun to their heads etc fair enough, but it seems to me that having a decent career without a degree is harder than ever. Student jobs: well I didn't need one, I had a grant. I was therefore measureably better-off than today's students. It is also a simple mathematical reality that houses are harder to afford these days on typical starting salaries.

Perhaps my bit about being demoralised was a bit of an over-simplification but today's younger people do notice their debt and the high prices of houses. There seems also to be a lot more 'pressure to conform' (particularly by consuming) at present than I ever felt. Though perhaps that's because I'm the type of person who'd not feel it at all anyway.

To sum up: You won't find me going around saying our country's crap. Far from it. But in many ways it's tougher starting out in life here now than it was when I did.

[leroy]

First, Mills harm principle. The jurisprudential question which arises is should the state interfere with a persons choice of health or life. Obviously the answer is no, as my health or life is for me to decide and no one else. However what if my freedom to injure my health causes harm to others? The answer is so simple that a lot of people have lost sight of it. There are a plethora of laws which allow you to protect your person from someone who is enjoying ruining their health. Someone threatening you with a needle whilst walking home, simple, you are lawfully allowed to do robustly what is necessary to protect yourself, including killing them if that is necessary....

So the law will protect anyone whom cares to use it to avoid being harmed by those whom are free to harm themselves. The exception to this is those persons who cannot protect themselves. The weak or the infirm. If you are walking home, are threatened and you cannot or will not stand up for yourself, then you must allow yourself to be put into a class of persons who need extra protection, but the remedies for providing this extra protection should not be cast on society as a whole but should be borne by the special class i.e. do not put up taxation on alcohol etc but refrain from going into city centres on the weekends.

Great synopsis. I don't bother with the city centre circus on weekends nowadays, and whilst that is to some extent a curtailment of my choices due to the actions of some idiots, I would accept that my avoidance of bowling around the docks drunkenly after dark is preferable to greater regulation or increased lager taxes solely as a preventative measure against violence in town. Not sure if that makes me weak or infirm, or just more selective in my tastes and of what constitutes fun nowadays!

A problem arises with situations where a condition, for example a vicious addiction, drives some to prey on people who are unable to defend themselves when catching a train after dark, waiting at a bus stop or generally going about there business. If the vulnerable do not constitute a majority standpoint in society, are their freedoms to be curtailed because of their minority status? No, because we have some commonly held societal values. Policy with some degree of paternalism, is, in my view a more civilised approach, and this is what informs my belief that some of the harder drugs should remain illegal and be fiercely combated by enforcement agencies.

[emordnilap]

my belief that some of the harder drugs should remain illegal and be fiercely combated by enforcement agencies.

Do you believe that the 'war on drugs' is being won? I don't and I don't think it's even partially 'winnable', at least, not as it is currently being tackled.

What would you think of the idea of regulating drugs - making them available through licensed outlets? Are we justified in regulating some drugs but banning others, with our current experience of fighting a losing battle and the experience of the prohibition period in America?

Is there no place for consideration of bringing drugs into the open? They're not going to go away. I would hope that regulation would take away the more sinister side of the dealings. OK, we have different problems with drink from those of, say, cocaine but at least we can keep an eye on the dealers!

[Andy Hunt]

I think that the small things we can all do, like makining our own wine or whatever, can go a long way to restoring meaning to a meaningless existence.

hehe . . . in vino veritas est.

Drink is the answer . . . sorry, what was the question again?

[21st_century_caveman]

Well, well we are all feeling a tadge gloomy aren?t we?

Not at all, the sun is shining and i've just got back from a nice bike ride over some hills and along the beach.

Now, we move to the worlds crap bit.

I cant see where anyone said the country or world was crap, there was criticism of certain aspects and trends, is that not allowed?

jobs being run by nasty little people with complete control over our lives is just ridiculous

From my experiences and other people's who i have spoken to it certainly isn't ridiculous, but then i suspect you've not had much experience of minimum wage work.
In many jobs there is a tendency for middle management types to treat their staff like children and control them in ways that for an adult is in many ways humiliating. Allowing people to take responsibility for certain aspects of their work gives meaning and allows trust to develop along with other desirable qualities.

If you want to do what my brother in law did and pack it all in ( job, no savings) become a hippy from the age of18- 32 ,travel, impregnate multifarious women and generally live a carefree existence then you can. Try doing it in North Korea and see if it works.

Ha Ha, do i detect a bit of jealousy there? I suspect a lot of negative attitudes towards people in the environmental movement who are perceived as hippies (of course many are) stem from envy.
People see us having lots of fun whilst trying to promote an important message and of course doing a bit of hard work now and again, and they look at themselves in their boring 9 - 5 existence and get a bit upset, shame really, being open minded is actually rather good.
It also explains a lot about your reactionary right-wing tory-boy attitude.

If you are of the opinion that we are being run by evil capitalists, then again you have the choice of becoming one.

I think thats the problem, the freedom and choice is an illusion, capitalism is no different to state communism in that respect, you either accept it or you are punished, its just the punishment thats different.

The market economy of the UK has delivered standards of living my Grandparents could only dream about, it is a good system and I hope it carries on for many years.

It has delivered greater standards of living for the few whilst systematically destroying the planet and i really hope that humanity has the intelligence to come up with a better system or we are toast.

So do not whinge when things are not going your way, you have the choice to alter your position. If you do not do so then there must be some happiness in your present situation.

Who's whinging? Not me, i'll be the first to admit that i've had a fairly privileged life, its allowed me to see the flaws in the current system, which i'm greatful for.

I think the problem that you have, which is common with many so-called self made people (which you no doubt consider yourself) is that having climbed to the top of the pile its very easy to look down at others and criticise them for not finding it as easy as you found it to climb up.

[leroy]

What would you think of the idea of regulating drugs - making them available through licensed outlets

I don't really know what I think, to be honest - at least not going and sitting in a library and reading and thinking on the subject for a few months, and that might not clear it up . It has always struck me that crack is a particularly nasty drug - That said I knew a guy once who I heard was a casual user who seemed to roll on through life with few troubles. I just cannot see, in the main, that a substance that often grabs hold of people and creates such a drive and a disregard for their own and other peoples' safety can be something that can be effectively controlled through fiscal policy and regulation. No really considered basis for this tho, and of course I have generally only encountered users who have become involved in crime - it may be the case that there are many a good citizen quietly puffing away at their glass pipe in front of Newsnight, or that in an alternative reality where booze was only recently discovered and banned that it is only the deeply troubled, seeking oblivion, who wound up mugging old ladies at bus stations in pursuit of moonshine money. I think people can take cocaine and opium in moderation and get by happily for years, but crack and heroin strike me as going a bit too far. Will have to look into this one to get a better picture, but got to finish the textbook on the Mid-East, Mao biography and three other books first - so much to do, so little time...

[stumuz]

A problem arises with situations where a condition, for example a vicious addiction, drives some to prey on people who are unable to defend themselves when catching a train after dark, waiting at a bus stop or generally going about there business. If the vulnerable do not constitute a majority standpoint in society, are their freedoms to be curtailed because of their minority status? No, because we have some commonly held societal values. Policy with some degree of paternalism, is, in my view a more civilised approach, and this is what informs my belief that some of the harder drugs should remain illegal and be fiercely combated by enforcement agencies.

No, these vicious people do not constitute a class of persons. They are violent criminals who should be hunted down ruthlessly, and are not entitled to protection in a polity, maybe a prison, but not a polity.

The vulnerable will and have their freedoms curtailed to the necessary extent to ensure their individual protection. The timid should not go acid rave parties; we should not ban acid rave parties because there are timid people. Old ladies tend not to go to Millwall home games; we should not ban millwall home games because there are old ladies.

Your view that harder drugs should remain illegal is well supported by the highest echelons in society, and for good reason. Illegal drugs ensure that a lot of lawyers, police, and judges increase their numbers and budgets year on year.
It is the reason that we have criminal justice jobs at all. Court staff, psychologists, probation officers, child psychologists, youth offending teams, CPS case workers, sociologists, local authority care teams, social services, community support officers, school liaison officers, home office strategy annalists, the list goes on and on and on. These people rely absolutely on the criminalisation of drugs for their very jobs. They need druggies more than druggies need them.

[zigspider]

First, Mills harm principle. The jurisprudential question which arises is should the state interfere with a persons choice of health or life. Obviously the answer is no, as my health or life is for me to decide and no one else. However what if my freedom to injure my health causes harm to others? The answer is so simple that a lot of people have lost sight of it. There are a plethora of laws which allow you to protect your person from someone who is enjoying ruining their health. Someone threatening you with a needle whilst walking home, simple, you are lawfully allowed to do robustly what is necessary to protect yourself, including killing them if that is necessary. A salient example was the time I was in a restaurant years before the smoking ban when the chap at the next table started to light up. I asked him to put it out. He refused saying that it was lawful to smoke on the premises and it was an attack on his liberty. I said that smoking was a known cause of cancer and was injurious to my health, in which case I was lawfully entitled to use whatever means necessary to extinguish his cigarette and protect myself. He kindly put it out.
.

Even as an recent ex-smoker, I find the above incredibly annoying. I think the Police at the time would have frowned on your defense if you had actually used 'whatever means necessary' (including killing ) against someone legally entitled at that time and in that place to abuse his body.I assume the resteraunt didn't have a seperate non-smoking area. If not, then I think your legal entitlement would have been to move away (or ask him to move whilst smoking (something which I personally would have been happy to do at the time) If it had been me at the time, I would have continued smoking and probably ended up charging you with GBH after you had used your perceived entitlement to batter me for the crime of lawfully smoking a cigarette.

I trust you have never smoked?

Jerry

[emordnilap]

What would you think of the idea of regulating drugs - making them available through licensed outlets

I just cannot see, in the main, that a substance that often grabs hold of people and creates such a drive and a disregard for their own and other peoples' safety can be something that can be effectively controlled through fiscal policy and regulation.

You could be talking about drink there, you know...

[leroy]

Stumuz wrote:

No, these vicious people do not constitute a class of persons. They are violent criminals who should be hunted down ruthlessly, and are not entitled to protection in a polity, maybe a prison, but not a polity.

I may not have made myself clear in my last post - the class of people I was referring to was vulnerable members of the public who are preyed upon by criminals as they wait for a bus or whatever. Using examples like millwall home games or 'acid rave parties' (might need Doc Brown's Delorean for that one ) as things that can be avoided is ok in itself, but that does not mean that society should not combat negative influences that exacerbate theft or violent crime. Utilitarianism has some influence on our jurisprudence, but so do ideas of a social contract as per Hobbes and Locke.

that is the reason that we have criminal justice jobs at all. Court staff, psychologists, probation officers, child psychologists, youth offending teams, CPS case workers, sociologists, local authority care teams, social services, community support officers, school liaison officers, home office strategy annalists, the list goes on and on and on. These people rely absolutely on the criminalisation of drugs for their very jobs. They need druggies more than druggies need them.

I have worked in criminal justice and have to say that the bread and butter workload is dealing with punch ups after the pub and especially men beating up their partners at home. Stuff caused by drug addiction is definitely a big one, but its usually because an addict has actively done something to get the attention of the authorities. I am not sure that dismantling the CJS would be a great idea. I have worked in a prison too, and would not like to see many of the lifers and sex offenders let out.

I found most of the people that I worked with at the CPS, police and within the Prison Service to be extremely dedicated, hardworking and constantly embattled. Lawyers who like money generally go down the commercial or human rights route, as you will be a lot better off as a teacher than as a prosecutor when debts accrued in training are taken into account.

emordilnap wrote:

You could be talking about drink there, you know...

Absolutely, but not most drinkers. Also, alcohol is a drug that is deeply embedded in European culture and cannot viably be prohibited for reason discussed previously. I can't see that this is really a justification for Spar to start selling crack rocks next to the Benson&Hedges.