Cyprus-Forum.com

[cyprusgrump]

It is no business of the government to tell us what we can eat, drink, smoke or otherwise put into our bodies.

For as much as one might admire your tenacious support for the legalization of drugs (and 'Tenacity' is a quality to be admired in any circumstance) I do feel that the above statement (taken out of context........... sorry for that) weakens your position since it MUST be the business of government if their function is to be responsibly concerned for the welfare of those they govern.

Sadly, we cannot trust the government to make rational decisions on what is good or bad for us. Quite frankly, I don't trust them to tie their own shoelaces most of the time...

Government is driven by single campaign lobby groups which demand restrictions on their own pet hates like drugs, smoking, alcohol, salt, sugar, etc.

Inevitably, these campaigns are based to the flimsiest of science (like the obesity epidemic judged by the woeful BMI index) or often downright lies or made-up 'facts'.

Take a deeper look into any of the current campaigns (including smoking if you wish) and you will find a fabrication of lies and self interest.

We should not be lectured by our government - we should do as we please as long as it causes no harm to others.

[cyprusgrump]

Wrong about France Grump.

"But in fact these cultural models are totally false. In the UK, alcoholism is more visible. In France, it stays hidden. But the levels are the same."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/se ... ng-problem

Exactly, your quote and this one: -

Though the French are often seen, and see themselves, as a nation of moderate drinkers, certainly compared with Britons, statistics reveal similar levels of alcohol consumption and dependence.

Prove my point.

Although booze is cheaper in France, the proportion of people that face drinking problems are the same. In the UK there is £1.90 duty on a bottle of wine plus 20% VAT on the duty and the wine. In France it is 3p.

If, as you claimed, more people consumed the product if it got cheaper you would expect France to have a significantly higher problem with booze than the UK.

As it is, your article makes it clear that the ratios are the same.

Err no, this was the wrong bit,

"Likewise, places like France with cheap booze have few problems. It simply doesn't follow that if you reduce the cost of something people will consume more - if it did, the entire population of France would be lying in the streets surrounded by empty wine bottles...."

Well no...

£1.90 duty + 20% VAT in the UK.

3p in France.

Your article makes clear that the level of alcoholism in France is the same - you would expect it from your own reasoning to be significantly higher.

[Schnauzer]

It is no business of the government to tell us what we can eat, drink, smoke or otherwise put into our bodies.

For as much as one might admire your tenacious support for the legalization of drugs (and 'Tenacity' is a quality to be admired in any circumstance) I do feel that the above statement (taken out of context........... sorry for that) weakens your position since it MUST be the business of government if their function is to be responsibly concerned for the welfare of those they govern.

Sadly, we cannot trust the government to make rational decisions on what is good or bad for us. Quite frankly, I don't trust them to tie their own shoelaces most of the time...

Government is driven by single campaign lobby groups which demand restrictions on their own pet hates like drugs, smoking, alcohol, salt, sugar, etc.

Inevitably, these campaigns are based to the flimsiest of science (like the obesity epidemic judged by the woeful BMI index) or often downright lies or made-up 'facts'.

Take a deeper look into any of the current campaigns (including smoking if you wish) and you will find a fabrication of lies and self interest.

We should not be lectured by our government - we should do as we please as long as it causes no harm to others.

Thank you for your interesting views on this subject, it has been a pleasure exchanging opinions.

My apologies to Jerry since I inadvertently attributed YOUR quote to HIM (rectified a little too late I fear), Best Wishes to you both, I am unable to engage further as I am required elsewhere.

Schnauzer.

[Jerry]

Wrong about France Grump.

"But in fact these cultural models are totally false. In the UK, alcoholism is more visible. In France, it stays hidden. But the levels are the same."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/se ... ng-problem

Exactly, your quote and this one: -

Though the French are often seen, and see themselves, as a nation of moderate drinkers, certainly compared with Britons, statistics reveal similar levels of alcohol consumption and dependence.

Prove my point.

Although booze is cheaper in France, the proportion of people that face drinking problems are the same. In the UK there is £1.90 duty on a bottle of wine plus 20% VAT on the duty and the wine. In France it is 3p.

If, as you claimed, more people consumed the product if it got cheaper you would expect France to have a significantly higher problem with booze than the UK.

As it is, your article makes it clear that the ratios are the same.

Err no, this was the wrong bit,

"Likewise, places like France with cheap booze have few problems. It simply doesn't follow that if you reduce the cost of something people will consume more - if it did, the entire population of France would be lying in the streets surrounded by empty wine bottles...."

Well no...

£1.90 duty + 20% VAT in the UK.

3p in France.

Your article makes clear that the level of alcoholism in France is the same - you would expect it from your own reasoning to be significantly higher.

Specifically this was the wrong bit "Likewise, places like France with cheap booze have few problems." France obviously does but the drinking "culture" there is different.

I'm not convinced that a reduction in tax on booze would reduce the weekend binge drinking we see on our streets, I'm sure it would make it even worse and we would have to pay more for the interfering government agencies to clear up the mess. Perhaps we should let the drunks fight it out on a saturday night and then refuse them hospital treatment, ulimately the problem and its participanmts would die out - sorted!

As Schnauzer suggests, education (aka government interference) is probably the way forward.

I need a drink.

[cyprusgrump]

Specifically this was the wrong bit "Likewise, places like France with cheap booze have few problems." France obviously does but the drinking "culture" there is different.

I'm not convinced that a reduction in tax on booze would reduce the weekend binge drinking we see on our streets, I'm sure it would make it even worse and we would have to pay more for the interfering government agencies to clear up the mess. Perhaps we should let the drunks fight it out on a saturday night and then refuse them hospital treatment, ulimately the problem and its participanmts would die out - sorted!

As Schnauzer suggests, education (aka government interference) is probably the way forward.

I need a drink.

Okay, if you want to argue semantics...

I should perhaps have made my point more clearly by saying: -

If you look at alcohol for instance - some of the countries with the most expensive alcohol also have large problems with alcoholism. Conversely, places like France with cheap booze do not necessarily have more problems than the UK.

My point remains valid - cheap booze does not necessarily mean more problems with alcohol.

Also, I didn't say 'a reduction in tax on booze would reduce the weekend binge drinking we see on our streets'... I believe we have plenty of laws in the UK that can and would control the problem we see on the streets and in the A&E departments at weekends - sadly these are not enforced. We can only ask ourselves why people that regularly cause trouble under the influence of alcohol are not punished....? Perhaps it suits those that wish to control our alcohol consumption for the problems to persist...?

By the way, did you know that in the UK 'binge drinking' is defined as 'drinking more than twice the daily limit''? That makes me a 'binge drinker' several times a week yet I have never caused problems due to my drinking. Think about that the next time you see a hysterical headline in the media about binge drinkers! The government of course likes to associate the term 'binge drinking' with images of teenagers fighting or vomiting in the street...

Sadly, the 'daily' limit is yet another government produced 'one size fits all' arbitrary limit that was literally made up and has no basis whatsoever in scientific fact. Think about THAT the next time that you and Schnauzer suggest we let the government decide what we may or may not put into our bodies...

[Jerry]

"Alcohol was 69.4% more affordable in 2007 than it was in 1980"

http://www.ias.org.uk/resources/papers/ ... trends.pdf

Hmmm, food (and drink) for thought.

[cyprusgrump]

"Alcohol was 69.4% more affordable in 2007 than it was in 1980"

http://www.ias.org.uk/resources/papers/ ... trends.pdf

Hmmm, food (and drink) for thought.

Well yes...

But then everything is more affordable than it was in 1980 as we have all become more wealthy...

Sorry, but this is one of those ridiculous headline news stories that are used along the lines of 'lager is cheaper than water'... it simply isn't true in reality...

In REAL TERMS alcohol is significantly more expensive than it was in 1980...

You have fallen into the MSM trap...

Here is a typical headline...

In Scotland and the UK, alcohol has become greatly cheaper to buy over the last 20 years, particularly in the off-sales sector.

No it hasn't. Britons have become wealthier. For the record, alcohol has become more 45% more affordable since 1980 while becoming 24% more expensive in inflation-adjusted terms. See Statistics on Alcohol: England, 2012...



Okay...?

[cyprusgrump]

An interesting article (and comments) on legalising Marijuana...

[supporttheunderdog]

and now some comments from all party Group in the Upper House....

Decriminalise drugs, inquiry by cross-party peers says
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21004715

The possession and use of all illegal drugs should be decriminalised, a cross-party group of peers has said. The least harmful should be regulated and sold in licensed shops, with labels detailing risks, the group concluded. The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Drug Policy Reform (APPG) said criminal sanctions did not combat drug addiction, and only marginalised users.

(the report does not call for the complete legalisation of all drugs but suggests relaxation of controls on some which are "less dangerous", if there is sich a thing.)

[cyprusgrump]

and now some comments from all party Group in the Upper House....

Decriminalise drugs, inquiry by cross-party peers says
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21004715

The possession and use of all illegal drugs should be decriminalised, a cross-party group of peers has said. The least harmful should be regulated and sold in licensed shops, with labels detailing risks, the group concluded. The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Drug Policy Reform (APPG) said criminal sanctions did not combat drug addiction, and only marginalised users.

(the report does not call for the complete legalisation of all drugs but suggests relaxation of controls on some which are "less dangerous", if there is sich a thing.)

A Step in the right direction....