Comments on: “Don’t touch that special grown-up drink, it’s much too exciting for you”

By: G. Tingey

G. Tingey — Tue, 08 May 2007 16:10:38 +0000

“Well-meaning prhibitionists at Alcohol Concern” …

They are mostly religious teetotallers, who don’t want anyone else to have any fun.
Just like your standard religious believer, in fact.

By: Dunc

Dunc — Wed, 02 May 2007 11:18:50 +0000

Dunc: you forget cider. Understandable, but a fatal flaw in your argument.

Hmmmm, OK, it’s a flaw, but I’m not entirely convinced it’s a fatal flaw. You could regard the cider phenomenon as merely a prior wave of the same thing – cheap, strong, sweet booze marketed directly at kids. It’s not like Diamond White (or whatever it is the kids are drinking nowadays) bears any resemblance to traditional cider, and the marketing approach is identical to the other alco-pops. And I don’t think cider was produced in anything like the current volumes before somebody realised you could market it to kids either…

By: John B

John B — Wed, 02 May 2007 01:09:34 +0000

Dunc: you forget cider. Understandable, but a fatal flaw in your argument.

Pejar: I absolutely agree with you, factually speaking.

In my defence, 1) people who want to lock (me / people who share my views and attitudes) up for how I feel I should live my life annoy me so much that sometimes I tar people who merely disapprove with the same brush;

2) most (not all) people who actually *say* ‘I don’t need alcohol to have a good time, rather than just thinking it, tend to fall into the ‘stop it’ rather than the ‘wouldn’t do it myself but don’t mind it’ group.

By: Pejar

Pejar — Tue, 01 May 2007 16:58:02 +0000

While I agree with the gist of what you say, I think that taking potshots at non-drinkers in the last few paragraphs is wide of the mark and completely unnecessary. As a non-drinker myself I fully support the right of other people to drink. Maybe some of them need alcohol to have a good time, but I categorically do not. Some people choose not to drink for health reasons or because they are struggling with alcoholism. It seems practically demeaning to these to suggest that they can have no fun or that there is something foolish about their choice. I know a number of other non-drinkers, permanent and temporary, all of whom are capable of having fun in other ways.

By: Dunc

Dunc — Tue, 01 May 2007 15:10:20 +0000

I find it interesting that none of the prohibitionists seem to have looked at possibly the single major factor in the apparent rise of teenaged drunkeness – the availability of booze that tastes like pop. Back when I was a nipper, getting drunk involved beer, wine or whisky, rather than some fruit-flavoured carbonated concoction. The advertising of such “alco-pops” is also clearly aimed at the younger end of the market. Of course, it only works because we have this silly taboo status for alcohol. I very much doubt that WKD sells well in France…

As for the wider argument, we’d be better served if we could get the prohibitionists out of all matters related to drugs – after all, if you take a prohibitionist approach to dope smoking, it’s pretty hard to argue that you shouldn’t do the same with alcohol.

By: jamal

jamal — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 21:35:54 +0000

i like option 1.

By: Phil E

Phil E — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:11:40 +0000

All things being equal, more police would have led to more arrests for drunken violence and hence a rise in the drunken violence statistics (the main figure anyone uses, anyway). You need to factor in the rise of low-level semi-policing (e.g. taxi marshals) and not-quite-arrests (e.g. penalty notices, many of which are almost certainly going to drinkers who wouldn’t previously have been cautioned).

Since all of this has happened at pretty much the same time, I don’t know how you’d separate out the different causal factors. But, considering that even the police were lobbying for staggered closing times, it seems daft to assume that longer hours didn’t have any effect.

By: John B

John B — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 13:12:30 +0000

The whole package of longer hours, targeted policing and tougher controls on rogue licensees has cut alcohol-related violence.

If anyone tells you they know exactly which part of the package has had the most effect, they’re either lying or have access to newer evidence than either of us.

(the police have been extremely keen to push the view that the police have been the most important factor. I’m not convinced they’re entirely impartial, though.)

By: sanbikinoraion

sanbikinoraion — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:59:56 +0000

I was of the understanding that the reduction in alcohol-related violence was simply due to greater police presence on the streets around the time of the relaxation of the law. If you’ve got newer evidence, though, I’d love to hear it.

By: The Perfect Excuse

The Perfect Excuse — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:27:42 +0000

Alcohol Laws…

…