Minimum Booze Pricing

[nfe]

No, there aren't. Whilst Afghan says "your dog" I think it's pretty clear he means it in a general fashion, directing specifically at you is just highlighting the unfairness of targeting people who don't deserve it to get the ones who do.

[Matt77]

I've got all day, but lets just agree to differ on this one as I'm unlikely to persuade you and vice versa :D

[nfe]

I don't like agreeing to disagree when the other person is wrong :lol:

Afghan can clarify what he meant, but I think it's pretty hard to misconstrue. Accusing Dave of any assumptions is even more baseless. We'll see what they say, I suppose.

[MDV]

So I think the UK has a social problem, drink is part of it but not the root cause.  People who can't behave can't behave whether they are drunk or not, drinking may make them worse but there's plenty in the UK that don't need to get wasted to behave like t%&ts.

This is the problem

As I said before, alcohol is responsible for precisely nothing whatsoever.

The substance doesnt create the abuse and all people at all times are responsible for their own actions. Vandalism when drunk = vandalism. Assault when drunk = assault. There is no such thing as 'alcohol related crime' only 'arseholes that happened to be drunk while being arseholes'.

Matts invitation for a police state with fewer freedoms affects far more people that do no harm with alcohol than do. That isnt an acceptable trade to me, but, as long as the freedoms taken away from everyone else dont affect matt, its fine.

It's not me I want them to control.

This is it really, isnt it? The crux of it. If you cant see why this is a huge assumption and not just a hypocritical and egomaniacal thing to say but also a frankly very dangerous point of view, theres no helping you

[Matt77]

Where's my police state request?
I think you misunderstand my point and have read too much in to it?
By control I only mean indirectly influence.
I'm not Hitler :D

[MDV]

It is a governmental responsibility to promote well empirically supported information with regard to alcohols effect on health, for example. Not determine how or when we drink it.

I think it's both

Police state might be a little far, but you want to allow the government to curb the liberties of millions for the actions of a few. Unacceptable, and a very slippery slope, as we are seeing.

[Matt77]

When did I say that?

[MDV]

All the time in this thread. Like when you said the government should determine how and when we drink booze.

[Matt77]

You mean when I agreed it is a governmental responsibility to promote well empirically supported information with regard to alcohols effect on health?
I later clarified the other bit.
 They determine how or when we drink it by setting the licensing laws and size of measures.

[MDV]

Which do nothing but determine when any drunken louts blunder onto the street and wreck it, and how many drinks they have to consume to reach their desired state of intoxication. You've opined a lack of government control over alcohol distribution, outlet regulation, measure size and quantities consumed. You've complained of behaviour of some people when drunk, and seem to think the former somehow has an influence on the latter. Not so, as many in this thread have tried to point out to you.

[Matt77]

I still don't think you've got the right end of the stick from what I've typed matey
I fear if I type it this will go on and on and on and on... so I may send it as a pm instead.

[FredD]

I still don't think you've got the right end of the stick from what I've typed matey
I fear if I type it this will go on and on and on and on... so I may send it as a pm instead.

Looking for more smilies Matt ?   :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Matt77]

 :D

[Dmoney]

when does the minimum pricing start?
I dont drink but I will probably drop that, get wrecked, and fight as many people as I can before it gets too expensive for me to do so. If it ends up being fun, like many people, I could probably afford to do the same thing on more expensive booze anyway. It might turn my life around... who knows! That said... if it gets too much I could just go back to beating up drunks that annoy me.

[dave_mc]

Using your own "cures", since you have no problem in infringing others' rights who aren't doing you any harm, when exactly are you going to be handing your dog in to the local government benevolent protectorate?

I thought it was pretty obvious that the way i worded it that I assumed you were one of the responsible dog owners. Apparently not. :lol:

I don't like agreeing to disagree when the other person is wrong :lol:

Afghan can clarify what he meant, but I think it's pretty hard to misconstrue. Accusing Dave of any assumptions is even more baseless. We'll see what they say, I suppose.

:drink:

This is the problem

As I said before, alcohol is responsible for precisely nothing whatsoever.

The substance doesnt create the abuse and all people at all times are responsible for their own actions. Vandalism when drunk = vandalism. Assault when drunk = assault. There is no such thing as 'alcohol related crime' only 'arseholes that happened to be drunk while being arseholes'.

Matts invitation for a police state with fewer freedoms affects far more people that do no harm with alcohol than do. That isnt an acceptable trade to me, but, as long as the freedoms taken away from everyone else dont affect matt, its fine.

I'm not sure I'd go that far. there are certainly alcoholics (a disease), and also some people do turn into dicks when drunk. One of my friends was like that, actually. It only happened when he was absolutely hammered, but he was the absolute nicest person you could ever meet when sober, and a bit of a dick when drunk. I mean, he wasn't going round setting fire to people or anything, but there was a definite change that could pretty much only be put down to alcohol.

that being said, i agree 100% with your overall points. :)