| Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites. |
| Reluctant Hero |
New Alcohol Licensing LawsThe new licensing law came into force yesterday which will see the end of Happy Hour's and off-sales only able to sell alcohol from 10 - 10.Are we becoming even more of a "nanny-state" or is this a step in the right direction to tackle the perceived alcohol problem Scotland has? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8230074.stm |
||||||
| Aventinian |
The former.
Do they really believe that anything will change because people can't buy drink before 10 o'clock? As for happy hours, I've never even seen one in the UK. |
||||||
| Alasdair |
The latter.
It'll stop alcoholics replenishing their stock at an ungodly hour. And I used to make a great deal of use of happy hours back-in't-day and when you're young and impressionable you will cram in as much as possible while it's cheap and you're on a limited budget. I've always maintained that I left uni as a border-line alcoholic (couldv'e gone one way or tuther). How much influence did cheap drink have on it? Well aside from making great use of happy hours and student nights I also found that you could buy a litre of strong cider for 50p. |
||||||
| Fidget |
I don't understand the logic behind this. The banning of happy hours just encourages people to drink more at home before they go out, so it might be scoring an own goal. | ||||||
| voiceofourown |
I personally believe that the Scottish Government would be wise to encourage drinking in pubs (reduce their taxes for a start) rather than at home or in the streets. Apart from the boost to local economies this would provide, young drinkers would be liberated from some of the peer pressure that drinking exclusively in the company of their young pals exerts.
A pub is also, or at least should be, a controlled environment. This is where we should ask more of publicans. It's a quid pro quo. We create an environment where your business can prosper, you create a safe environment for those who frequent your pub. That safe environment should extend to the vicinity of the pub as well. If you can't provide that, you shouldn't be running a pub. |
||||||
| Fidget |
That's along the lines of my thinking as well. I can't see how discouraging people from drinking in pubs is solving anything and might even make it worse since it's driving people away from the only enviroment where any degree of control can be exercised. | ||||||
| Holebender |
Am I missing something here? Forcing off licenses to stop selling drink at ridiculous prices is going to drive people out of pubs? How does that work then? | ||||||
| Fidget |
Yes, you are missing something. | ||||||
| Fidget |
..you're missing the point that shops and offies aren't really affected.. whereas pubs have just had one of their biggest marketing tools reined in. | ||||||
| Holebender |
Minimum pricing doesn't really affect the outlets which sell drink for the lowest prices? That's really interesting... would you care to explain how you reached your conclusion? | ||||||
| voiceofourown |
I'm with Holebender on this. Minimum pricing is a good start but we need to do more to shift the balance away from off-licence sales.
I'm aware that many people prefer drinking at home and no doubt they should not be punished for that choice. However, off-licences and particularly Supermarkets have a huge competitive advantage and this needs to be addressed if we are to change our drinking culture to a less damaging one. |
||||||
| Aventinian |
You're confusing two separate things. What we're talking about are the new Licensing rules that came into effect recently, having been passed through the Scottish Parliament in 2005. Minimum drinks pricing is a separate proposal which has not yet been seriously considered, much less enacted. Whilst there do seem to be more regulations aimed at off-sales in these measures, they are typically fairly insignificant things, like positioning of alcohol together in supermarkets etc. The prohibition of short-term promotions is, however, apparently rather more important to the industry which it represents.
Why? If anything, I would imagine people are less likely to cause bother when they're drinking in their own homes. Still, I object to the whole collective punishment logic which seems to underpin these measures. If people are committing crimes, arrest them; don't penalise the innocent (and indeed, disproportionately the poorest in our society) by artificially inflating the cost of their shopping. Or if you're talking about health - well, I rather think that's the person concerned's business. |
||||||
| magister ludi |
couldn't agree more |
||||||
| Alasdair |
Perhaps if we should target the costs involved more specifically at those that are causing the cost. Perhaps we could have some sort of private police force and health care system. Afterall why should our collective wallets be punished for the abuses of a minority ... |
||||||
| Aventinian |
I'll deal first with the NHS issue - simply because you chose to offer alms to someone does not mean that you are then able to control their lives on the at basis. Using free health care to justify restrictions on individual liberty would, I suspect, make such a system completely unacceptable even to British people. Regardless of who is paying them, we expect to be clients of medical professionals, not subjects of them. As for policing, the same broad argument holds, although the consequences of adopting a 'keep costs low' approach are far more intense. Indeed, it's effectively the old 'liberty vs security' debate rehashed - although in this case we are talking about tax money - something even less valuable than security.
We do, to an extent, in the form of fines and court costs. |
||||||
| magister ludi |
So, it's about money then is it? |
||||||
| Alasdair |
No, but you are arguing that the steps taken are an infringement on civil liberties and that people must take responsibility for their actions. Part of that responibility must be to deal with the consequences, if the state is not to control 'contrlled drugs' then why should they provide the fix when it all goes wrong. Surely it would be up to the individual to deal with the consequences of their own actions and if that means bleeding to death because they've fallen and smashed their head open on a kerb cause they were too pissed to walk in a straight line then so be it. Likewise when their liver packs in. (this, incidentally would not be my ideal, I'm just saying). Given that that's not 'the way we do things' then how the necessary policing, healthcare and social services are funded must be taken into consideration. Given that alcohol is the source of many social ills then it seems entirely in keeping that this be considered as a revenue stream in order to fund the public services that come as a result of the excesses of a number of people. What are the alternatives? Prohabition? increases in income or other taxations? education? The first two here are obviously going to effect everyone regardless of whether or not they even drink or how much they drink. Education has only been shown to have a limited success and still costs money. The targetting of those who consume and supply alcohol is the only rationally effective way of tackeling alcohol problems.
And isn't it more irrational to tell people that "you can do whatever you want and regardless of the consequences, the state will pick up the tab." If you wish to have an NHS as a right, then everybody has to accept that they have responsibilities and that if you wish to live your life in an entirely liberal fashion then you can't necessarily expect the state to step in when your excesses cause you social or health problems. Having a 'free' healthcare system does not tally with the sort of 'individual liberty', as such it is entirely reasonable that if a particular type of 'liberty' is the cause of a particular set of problems then it may be challanged and taxed as appropriate. You haven't lost your freedom to get sozzled, it's just that you'll need to earn more to do it.
|
||||||
| magister ludi |
The problem I have with that argument is that the new restrictions don't in anyway increase the revenue stream to the public purse to pay for the those services. ( in fact, if the restrictions are successful I'd expect an overall reduction in the alcohol related tax). The restrictions are designed, I thought, to reduce alcohol consumption (and to do so in a targeted way). |
||||||
| magister ludi |
but the state does control the sale of alcohol: it determines who can sell it (and age restricts who can buy it) it determines where it can be sold & when it can be sold and it sets the level of taxation so by your logic the state should provide the fix when it all goes wrong. |
||||||
| Alasdair |
Therefore the restrictions would have worked and the amount of revenue required to deal with the problems would be lessened. |
||||||
| Alasdair |
Currently the state does offer the fix (at least the best it can). What you and AV seem to be arguing against though is state control of alcohol placing a greater onus on the individual to drink responsibly then surely the onus must be on the individual to take responsibility for their actions and the outcomes of their actions if they drink irresponsibly, particularly where the state has stepped back and said, in effect, "ok, it's up to you". But we all know that thisisn't going to happen. Yobs aren't going to be invoiced for damage to public property, beaten partners and children aren't going to receive reparation from apologetic spouses, hospitals aren't about to invoice those responsible for the patients they have to treat as a result of alcohol consumption. The state has to pick up the tab, and it is only reasonable in that case that the state takes measures to reduce these costs. |
||||||
| Aventinian |
Well, as you know I simply think that's morally wrong. But even then, to simply argue that social liberalism inevitably leads to something approaching anarchy is, I believe, demonstrably wrong. Countries which take a liberal attitude to drug use generally decrease the harm caused from use of these same drugs. Alcohol in Britain does far, far more good than it does harm. Indeed, it is very, very socially significant in our society - from a wee sherry in the Rectory to a few pints down the pub on a Friday night, it is what brings people together and, I believe, engenders a very positive social atmosphere. Damage to property and indeed beaten wives results where there is an absence of community, sociability and society. Indeed, these activities can only occur when the individuals concerned are socially isolated. You may believe that this example is somewhat facile, and perhaps to an extent it is, but ultimately things are not as simple as telling people what they can't do and then expecting them to somehow become more moral and decent as a result. |
||||||
| Aventinian |
It does a great deal more than that too. The amount of conditions that licensing boards can put on pubs and off-licences before allowing them a licence are obscene. Virtually everything can be legally dictated to someone who chooses to serve drink. |
||||||
| Aventinian |
Governments should do it because that is what they want to do, and that is the platform on which they will be elected. If they don't, people will soon stop voting for them and stop paying their taxes. Other than that, there is no 'duty' on them. Ultimately though, I do tend to take the view that the State is the problem-solver of last resort. If you get pissed and fall down a hole, you should sort it out; if you have a dispute with someone, a court is the last place you should go for resolution; if petty crime is committed, communities should be willing to help resolve it.
Liberalism!
The founding principles of the NHS were that it would be comprehensive. As someone who would like to see the NHS abolished, I'd have no great problem with it becoming less comprehensive. However, for those attached to the NHS, comprehensive care - irregardless of what an individual can be said to have caused - is fundamental. Indeed, to start identifying blame is not only time consuming, but effectively impossible: if you have a health problem, would you like to be told that it is your fault for not going out jogging enough when instead you chose (as is entirely your right) to post on the internet or partake in some other idle pleasure? Virtually every health problem can be said to have had some contribution from the individual; there is almost always something which could have been done to avert of lessen it. But obviously people do not go around every moment of every day worrying about their health. |
||||||