Ok, but here is the thing, you are assuming that the culture of small pubs will remain unaffected by the influx of young people who now must drink in these different establishments. What is to stop small pubs from accommodating the desires of the youth who are now forced to visit small pubs?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Sure, but the Scottish minimum pricing law is an example of a subtle law that I would (and do) support. It doesn't have to force establishments to close or accommodate new people and yet it still promotes less drinking.Quote:
Still, pricing itself matters, and this is recognised by policy-makers. In fact there are already laws quite similar to what I advocate in the very liberal-lefty lands of Scandinavia (see Systembolaget, Alko, etc) and to a lesser extent, Scottish minimum pricing laws. In the case of Scotland, these measures have come about through a recognition of the devastation alcohol causes, not out of any sort of moralising agenda.
I agree in being proactive, but the fact remains that under this type of policy, there will be clear winners and clear losers, no? It all seems to reek of social engineering (which is not inherently bad in itself) with a large capacity for exploitation and corruption.Quote:
Nobody needs to declare any wars here. I suggested subsidies because we have to be proactive in changing the drinking culture. Part of that is changing the 'experience' surrounding alcohol - make it less about getting intoxicated, and more about enjoying a traditional beverege, something that gives you a taste of the local area, a taste of history, whatever.
And there is the assumption I have been trying to point out. Perhaps this is just a part of UK culture that I have no idea about it, but to me, I would think that small pub owners would tolerate anything as long as they make a healthy profit off of it. If they are competing with other small pubs over this influx of young people, they may just as well re brand themselves and kick out the fat, middle aged men. Who is to say that small pubs won't encourage binge drinking once they get a taste of the revenue it generates?Quote:
Aye, but the behaviour surrounding binge drinking would never be tolerated in many a quiet local. Right now, the chain-pubs and clubs in town and city centres form a sort of binge-drinking complex. I know from my limited experience the clubs and pubs there work closely together, eg pubs selling discount wrist-band/tickets that get you into the club down the street. My proposals are about destroying these ties. The idea that all the young folk from my town that go up to Glasgow city centre for a night out, would suddenly descend upon the little local pubs filled with mostly fat middle-aged men is ludicrous, IMO. Drinking would lose all its glitz and glam. Like I said, its about destroying the culture.
To an extent. But my feeling is that these policies are still intrusive and still only make superficial treatments to the symptoms not the cause. I think the culture is what creates chain pubs and clubs, not the other way around.Quote:
She wasn't an alky, she wasn't dying for her next drink. She was a recreational drinker - the price had nothing to do with her doing what she did. The culture of drunken sensuality, loss of inhibition, peer pressure and moral looseness on the other hand, had a lot to do with it. We need to destroy that culture.
I think you may have been reading about D.A.R.E. which was part of the curriculum when I was in middle school (it is now discontinued in many areas because of its massive failure). Personally, I do not think the increase use of drugs went exactly as you described it. The DARE program was a failure because it was the exact opposite of education. It was lies and propaganda. I still remember the videos today of the cartoon kid getting "addicted" to the "gateway drug" marijuana and moving on to cocaine and heroin. It tried to present the laughable case that marijuana as a Schedule I drug was just as dangerous as all other Schedule I drugs.Quote:
I wish I had the article to hand, but I remember reading that drug abuse amongst teenagers in the USA exploded after a rather alarmist campaign was launched to warn them of the danger of drugs. Despite the fact that drug abuse was negligible amongst teenagers, some parents had a moral panic and kickstarted a huge education campaign to warn kids to stay away from drugs. They presented this idea that all the cool kids were doing drugs, that there was massive peer pressure to take drugs, even when there wasn't. Of course, this silly campaign made kids think that if they weren't doing drugs, then they were somehow freaks and not one of the cool kids. As a consequence, drug abuse shot up.
From what I remember, I think the same thing happens with alcohol education in schools. The schools themselves are cementing alcohols reputation as something cool and rebellious. They should stick to hard facts (health risks, etc) instead of creating a self-fulfilling prophecy where alcohol is presented as being a certain way, and so they reinforce its image as being such.
Students will experiment, its just how kids are. When you have figures of authority tell you that marijuana will get you addicted on the first puff and immediately cause permanent brain damage, you now have kids losing all trust in authority since they get high for the first time, enjoy it and 30 minutes later realize that they are completely fine. The dangers of drug use (almost) always stem from habitual usage and constant exposure, not singular events. The real danger of DARE is that once you find out that they lied about pot, some students take it once step further and think that the really dangerous drugs must have also been exaggerated.
To this day, I cannot recall when any movement has been made to give young people accurate and scientific data regarding drug use. It's all fear mongering and spin, which only works on people for a time.
For another time then.Quote:
That's a good question but it goes well beyond the scope of this discussion.
