The Amanjit Jhund NHS Column
Last week I attended a Progress event at the House of Commons on “New thinking for Britain’s next decade”. Jack Straw spoke at the event and one of the topics he covered was the blight that alcohol abuse and its fallout has on our communities. After his speech I asked him his opinion on how he thought we should combat this. While he spoke about the need to review 24 hour drinking licences (which I agree with) he also voiced an opinion that we should look at more closely: the prospect of minimum costs for alcohol.
Minimum prices for alcohol based on units have become something a of a vogue in recent months. The SNP government tried to introduce such measures in Scotland and despite failing to do so they are set to try again in the new year. Meanwhile, medical associations such as the British Medical Association (BMA) and the health select committee have been lobbying hard for such measures.
The prospect sits uneasily with me, as I recognise that such measures will affect the poorest in our society disproportionately with potentially no real effect on the vast majority of alcoholics, who in possession of a true addiction will do whatever it takes to acquire the substance.
One of the reasons for the increase in the rates of Alcoholic Liver Disease (ALD) is the increase in middle class drinkers: those that will drink a bottle of wine a night while believing that because they are not stumbling about the streets pissed or falling over that they are not endangering their health. These drinkers will not be affected by the proposals over minimum pricing. They need to be targeted in a different way.
Rather than pursuing minimum costs, which will punish the poorest and responsible drinkers but not always those drinking to excess, I would rather see us focus on alcohol education policies first.
Alcohol abuse is something that I have dealt with for most of my adult life. I come from a family with a history of alcohol abuse, I have seen family members die from it and I currently have a cousin drinking himself into an early grave. In fact as a Sikh male I have a significantly higher risk of developing alcoholic liver disease compared to the general public. These factors combined with my being a Glaswegian rugby playing doctor mean that the only way I could increase my risk of being an alcoholic would be to open a pub.
I don’t drink much these days (in fact I tend to worry more about my hardcore diet Irn Bru addiction) but I think that my background and my own nascent alcohol abuse at university played a part in my choice of speciality as a doctor. I chose to pursue a career in Hepatology (livers) and as a result I’ve worked in some of the most prestigious liver units on both sides of the Atlantic. I’ve spent most of my twenties sticking needles the size of a forearm into the abdomens of alcoholics and attempting to persuade them to stop drinking.
Some of them do stop, but not many. It is far more cost effective to educate people against drinking to excess in the first place.
In the past decade we have seen a consistent increase in the rates of death from alcoholic liver disease. It is estimated that over the next ten years we will see approximately 100,000 people die from direct consequences of alcohol abuse, and many more will be scarred from the social and economic fallout.
Contrast this with smoking, of which we have seen a consistent decline amongst both males and females since the 1970s. In this sphere it has been the tobacco education campaigns that have become the number one reason why individuals try to quit, and why young people are less likely to start smoking than ever before.
Ask any adult and I'm sure that they can list the most serious outcome of tobacco use, namely lung cancer. They understand exactly what it is and also that it is likely to kill you. They also have a very clear idea of what an individual with lung cancer would look like and the problems they might have. In many ways it's an easy message to convey: smoke and you get cancer.
Compare this to alcohol abuse. Ask anybody what happens if you drink too much and I'm sure that they can come up with the answer that it causes liver disease. Then try asking them what ALD means and you’re likely to get a much more vague answer (I tried this out on a secondary school teacher and all he could tell me about alcohol abuse was that you get liver disease and then might die). In fact, even when you mention alcohol abuse most people get a mental image of binge drinking nights out on the town rather than the serious consequences of abuse. For many people these mental images convey a pleasurable night out whilst for others possibly abusing alcohol at home by having a bottle of wine they have no relevance whatsoever.
Alcohol abuse can contribute to many forms of cancer but alcoholic cirrhosis and its complications remains the main cause of death for alcoholics. Most people, however, have no idea of exactly what an individual with alcoholic cirrhosis looks like or what the complications are. Recently Louise Rhymes released pictures of her daughter Stacey who died at the age of 24 from ALD. The pictures showed how the years of abuse had affected her daughter's youth, beauty and health. I admire Ms Rhymes' stance and personal bravery because I believe that it is only by exposing people to the realities of alcohol abuse and the results that we can hope to combat this problem.
I would like to see a more aggressive, graphic representation of end stage liver disease both in the media and in health promotion campaigns. The aim of this would not be to scare people, but to educate them. I'm not suggesting that we should print pictures of cirrhotic individuals on beer bottles but we do need to increase the exposure of the public to the very real outcomes of alcohol abuse. When people hear the phrase “alcohol abuse” I would rather that instead of thinking about men and women falling about in town centers on a night out people might have a mental image of the true consequences of abuse instead. I would rather have them think of Miss Rhymes and others like her.
We could start by using cirrhotic patients in alcohol awareness adverts showing the true face of alcohol abuse. I would also like to see cirrhotic patients utilised in the health promotion videos and leaflets used to teach our senior secondary school children about alcohol abuse. We need to show these people vomiting up blood, with distended abdomens, being pierced by a succession of needles just to try and keep them alive.
It's only by educating children about responsible alcohol use and the consequences of its abuse that we will have a chance to reverse the rather dangerous trend of younger people drinking ever increasing amounts at an age when the damage to their bodies is multiplied. This is a time-bomb that will go off when these children reach their twenties when, just like Miss Rhymes, it may already be far too late to reverse the damage.
Someone once said that we should focus on “education, education, education” and I'm inclined to agree. It may not be as easy, sexy or headline grabbing as alcohol licenses or minimum prices but I do think that it has a better chance of success. Then again tough on alcohol, tough on the...er..causes of alcohol does a have a certain ring to it.
I think it needs some more thought so I'm off to the pub for a cheeky pint.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
"This is not a representative image of women or the cost of alcohol on the NHS."
Hope you don't mind me quoting that Jessica?
May I also ask what has "libertarianism" got to do with a Labour site please?(you have gone into a lot of detail.)
On another note, regarding this male/female issue; I saw an article today in local Derby paper:
"Drunk? You won't get served."
There is a poster campaign commissioned by the Community Safety Partnership's Domestic and Sexual Violence Unit:
"....focuses on one of the worst case scenarios of people drinking beyond their limits at this time of year- sexual assault." To be displayed in men's toilets, bars, pubs and nightclubs.
It goes on to say, "records show that 87% of victims are female, and that 98% of detected suspects were male..."
And "...we have commissioned the posters with the 18-30 age group in mind.This group is at highest risk of becoming a victim or perpetrator of alcohol-fuelled sexual assault."
So greatly serious repercussions of 24 hour easy access to alcohol on the streets?
B.Bendle- thankyou for your earlier comments- sorry it's very limited when I can get time to post on here or read other's comments.But you offered some very relevant experience and facts.
I agree- some joined up thinking and action is needed- and shared responsibility?
For those that say nothing can be done- maybe the underlying factors and causes need to be addressed? Also- the smoking campaign appears highly successful- and unprecedented- so why not apply to excessive alcohol consumption?
In your example the neighbour is clearly into the other-regarding sphere. Your question is what would happen in my utopia. The answer is I don’t know because I don’t know what area you live in and what people there would vote for.
Personally I would vote for a parliamentarian who would pass laws on such infringements at a national level. Locally I would vote for a Judge who would enforce it. Perhaps he might contract a team of inspectors who you could call. They would send a report back to the elected panel of judges and magistrates confirming your neighbour was imposing on your liberty and issue an order to make the changes. If he does not then you can sue.
Then again, maybe the parliamentarians the people choose would not pass such laws, and if they did maybe the judge your community elected would not enforce it in your case. So you have two choices, put up or shut up. You can stand for election yourself, or you can persuade people to change their vote next time your community votes for their judge.
I have faith in local people to make the right local choices for themselves. You clearly have no faith in people to choose.
Just to get your argument straight, are you saying that there would be national law but the regional judiciary would decide whether or not to enforce each individual law?
Top man. (You're an Irn Bru addict.)
As for alcohol abuse. I'm afraid the whole attitude to it is flawed from cradle to grave.
Visit those countries that don't possess a thought police attitude to this such as France.
Children from as young as three are allowed to drink wine (watered down) with meals. Dare I say, in church as well when well below our drinking age.
Have they got such a problem. No. Because it's treated as a normal part of life.
Same went for not drinking whilst pregnant. Generally pregnancy is often alcohol assisted, so it's a bit late afterwards to say cut it out completely.
Our problem is that it's the done thing to get completely ratted at first opportunity because partly, it's seen as forbidden fruit, and there is not much stigma attached to being inebriated.
Thing is that dividing line seems to split between north and south Europe, and any study of Scandinavia merely serves to show that what can't be bought cheaply can be made at home.
Preaching and coercion clearly fail.
Shame is, a culture change can't be introduced by diktat. Gin Alley died when it stopped being cheaper than beer. You're always going to have to have a cheaper, lower alcohol alternative, and the price difference would have to be considerable.
Leave anything under 4% untouched and hit anything higher massively with tax (same level as wine). Won't solve the problem, but maybe flavour will become more important than strength.
In case you haven't guessed. I prefer decent ale to the lager/urine substitute.
The reason why the left would fight tooth and nail against this system is because it is designed to keep government small. It would be very hard to creep forward the boundaries of government every year because the people would have to vote a budget through for each major government function every few years. The left does love big government and big taxes.
With regards to rural roads the people living there would choose how much they wanted to spent on high quality roads. If they choose to just keep the money and pay less tax, then buy themselves a 4x4 instead they can.
Regards the government giveaway of flats I’ll put my hand up to envy on that one. I watched a newsnight interview where some young oik was joking that he lost his first flat because he trashed it, but they were giving him another. Another was being given a flat but said the area was a crap hole. Well I have got up at 6am every morning to go to work and worked bloody hard for 10 years and I still cannot get my own flat. Yet my tax money pays for their flat. I feel a deep sense of injustice about that one.
Here's a question for you. Say in your libertarian utopia, my next door neighbour whose garden borders mine asserts his rights on his own property and builds a 10 foot high wooden storage shed that blocks the light on my garden. Whose rights does the law protect - mine not to have my garden completely overshadowed, or his to do as he wishes with his own property?
Since you have taken an interest I will tell you exactly how much power central government should have. I know your only going to get hysterical and call me insane but I'm feeling generous.
Elections and oversight of elections should be in government’s hands. Parliament itself and the record of laws. That’s it.
Everything else can have an elected head and a budget voted for.
Examples of National elections:
The public elect a Field Marshall who will campaign on his merits and simultaneously a budget. If elected. The amount of budget will be passed to the contractors charged to collect taxes and deducted from our payroll. The field Marshall will use his budget to procure defence contracts from private military companies as our needs arise. The field Marshall will have the power to set terms of engagement for these companies.
If the public want to vote for overseas wars feel free. If you need to contract a French firm to do mine clearing, why no,t if they are cheaper. If the public want a large standing army of British born personnel, the Marshall can make it a part of his Manifesto. If pubic want to pay for a missile shield they can.
The public elect a Spy Chief and a budget.
Examples of regional elections:
The public elect a high Sheriff for a region and a budget. The Sheriff will use his budget to contract in jails and contract in policing, setting the rules under which they operate.
If the public want convicts to live in private cells with a window and plasma screen TV’s they can vote for a man and a budget to do that. If they want more police on the streets they can vote for a man and a budget who will do that.
The public elect a Judges for a region and a budget.
If the public want judges who spend all day hearing cases of people who overfilled their bin, they can have that. If the public want to elect judges who spend all their time going after career criminals they can have that instead.
The public elect a welfare Chief for a region and a welfare budget.
If the public want every teen slut and lay about to get their own flat on taxpayers money, they can have it. If the public want them in a workhouse, they can have that.
The public elect a transport Chief for a region and a transport budget.
If the public want great roads they vote for a guy who will give them that, if the public want speed cameras, they vote for a guy who will give them that.
Under my system you get what you want. Importantly, only Military and Military Intelligence are nationally voted on. Everything else is done at regional level. So if the South East want a low tax libertarian economy they can have it. If the Scots want a high tax totalitarian system with sky high welfare payments they can have it. Everybody gets what they want and then they pay for it.
Importantly every major function of what we currently think off as government would be voted on separately by the people. The people would also have the option for none of the above, if they were asked to vote on a function that they did not believe needs to exist.
Can you possibly imagine the state or the functions of the state as we have them today would even remotely resemble what we would have under this system?
"If the public want convicts to live in private cells with a window and plasma screen TV’s...
And you say I'm the one who's likely to get hysterical!
"Teen slut" sounds like porn language. Creepy. But then I've always found it weird that libertarians spend such a disproportionate amount discussing pornography, they seem overly interested in it.
I'm not going to waste time on this, but re the military stuff - if you look into current military procurement practice you'll find it's not as far from what you espouse as you think. Try War PLC by Stephen Armstrong, a good read.
Good luck maintaining the road and transport infrastructures in those regional economies.
There is huge expertise out there already- for example voluntary and health organizations that treat people for alcohol addiction.
Also the problem is social,cultural and historical.
And presumably some powerful vested interests and lobbying that would try to prevent a reduction in alcohol use.
Who gains from sale of alcohol? Maybe advertisers, supermarkets and companies themselves- or more.I agree pubs should be more proactive in dealing with heavy drinkers- but they need incentives and support too?
Also- I've noticed on local paper blogs, there is the usual "civil liberties" brigade, who feel affronted they may be retricted in some way, despite an agenda of the "greater good" to society. All this talk of a "nanny state" may have an intellectual argument- BUT clearly, this hasn't stopped so many young people dying, and the UK having an epidemic of binge drinking and anti social behaviour....we all need to share responsibility for what is happening on our streets, and be aware of issues like domestic violence behnd closed doors, which may be fuelled by drinking?
If the government elected a "Tsar" for drugs policy and education- why not a body similarly for alcohol misuse?
Also- health policy on reducing smoking- successfully- very inspiring. Why not alcohol? One could argue it has had a far more damaging effect on society!I'm sure the police would agree.
It must be about vested interests and money- surely?
And/or a perceived public unpopularity?
So this message needs to be "sold" in a balanced way- not demonizing heavy drinkers.Also moderate drinkers should not be penalized.Somehow this has to be targeted- perhaps primarily towards younger people as the first step- as the future generation.And we all need to share the responsibility in how we behave.
These are my feelings- although as I say I'm not an expert.
I hope something comes out of your writing Amanjit? Thanks a lot for raising it...
In the late 90s I was working as a marketing consultant to two massive brewing/drinks companies. They had a big problem because volume on-sales of beer to men - their old core market - was in freefall. It's obvious - that old pattern of blokes going to the pub every night and drinking 5 or 6 pints, more on weekends, was dying out.
Their solutions were to
1 premiumise beer (hence the push on stuff like Stella, Grolsch etc) to maximise revenue from what was being drunk
2 Grow the markets for women and younger drinkers. This is explicitly what alcopops were developed for - and the growth was great news for the drinks companies because an alcopop costs so little to produce - it's basically ethanol, sugar and flavouring, costs considerably less than 10p, so the margins can fund lots of marketing.
This is why in the late 90s you got heavy handed drinks like Vodka Source, marketed to tie in with seasonal changes like women's fashion.
This was all long term strategy, and personally I think it's a story waiting to be exposed. To be fair to the people involved, I don't think anyone foresaw the drinking to excess that it would lead to, and I don;t think it amounts to an evil conspiracy - it's just business.
But it is important to recognise that there are vested interests and forces driving the situation. Modern advertising and marketing are the most powerful forms of communication the world has ever seen, so they demand to be taken seriously.
What you call populism I call democracy. By your own logic why allow people to vote at all.
@Richard
The problem with MP's is we have far too many with far too little power over far too much government.
I think the more ideas the better.
I do feel strongly though- some of the onus has to be on advertising, particularly towards young people; and accessibility to cheap booze-as Ian pointed out.
The same effort needs to go into a camapaign against binge drinking as there has been in smoking/drugs education- although arguably drinking to excess is in the short term, more dangerous.
Sorry I'm only able to look on here for very short periods.
I think we need to treat drinking in a mature way. Infanticising drinking by adding sugar and a fruity taste - alcopops - should have been stamped out as soon as it was suggested. I do remember one particular prominent politician was marketing for a drinks company at the time alcopops first appeared, perhaps he should put his hand up and apologise for his contribution to creating a binge drinking generation?
It's a bloodbath!
Imagine working in A+E/ambulance/police on those nights?!”
I guarantee you have the fullest sympathy of those of us on the right. But for us the solution is simple. If you impact on services like the police or hospitals you get charged for that. The prohibitive cost we believe would very quickly realign people’s behaviour.
But for the left I struggle to see how you could deal with the problem, other than nannying people to death, sucking up millions in taxpayers money to fund lecturing adverts, but never ever targeting the actual people who impact on those services, because they might be poor and therefore its never their fault.
Ah, the famous "simple solutions" of the right. Great for generally law abiding market towns, totally impractical for the rest of the real world.
Do tell:
As regards the police, how is that different from being put in the cells and fined in the magistrates?
And at what point do you stop treating people who haven't paid their fines from the last time they were in A&E?
One major factor may be politicians don't want to upset drinks maunfacturers/adverisers- who project an image of glamour/coolness and social acceptibility. The latter too would do well to take some responsibility in influencing messages- particularly to younger people.
We can let our society/culture lapse into a binge drinking nightmare, or we can take steps to minimise it.
This is not about reasonable moderate drinkers- it is about those most affected by advertising and easy access of cheap booze.
If anyone has seen one of those reality TV police documentaries about nightlife on our city streets- it is balatantly obvious excessive drinking is having a massive detrimental effect on people's health, and crime.
The public need to hear joined up thinking and research based on reality- not just demonizing headlines.
Then maybe we can all address reasonably.
The tragedy of it is, these facts are well known- but so little done.However- it seems things now spiralling out of control.
Try visiting Nottingham/most big cities on a Friday/Saturday night- for any doubters of the scale of the problem!
Imagine working in A+E/ambulance/police on those nights?!
My point is: the law exists to tackle the issue. But it would mean tackling hundreds of drunks in city centres: each and every night. Police have far more important things to do: like arresting people for thought crimes..
Why? You would still use public money to fund them, but you would buy service from the private sector as you needed it. So for example all judges would be elected from the area they serve so that local people choose what type of judge they want on their patch. (Expect to see liberal judges being a thing of the past) upon election they are given control of a budget which is again voted on by the public, to secure the services they need from private companies, i.e. provision of a building and administration staff. Its seems a sound idea to me. You could do the same for jails. If people of an area want to pay for minimal provisions for criminals then they have that democratic choice. If they want to pay for luxury prisons with a plasma screen in each room and pool table in the community area they can vote that through in the budget. The point is you give democratic control to the people to have whatever system that region wants and wishes to pay for.
So the private supplier puts up a set of judges for election? Yup, that'd work.
I love how the right lectures the left on "the real world" - from its lofty position in cloud cuckoo land.
Are you nuts? Look at the effect of electing MPs. What have we got? People who have no ability other than to get elected. And when they get into that position they fleece the public purse. How many plcs allow shareholders to elect their senior managers? It does not happen because it does not work. The reason is that it takes skilled people to determine the abilities and weaknesses of the candidates. Elected judges will simply bring the standard down so that we'll end up with mediocre judges at best, and most likely we'll get corrupt judges. (Think of the temptation to dismiss the cases of people who would be influential in their re-election.)
Think things through James.
Populism and justice do not mix. Electing judges is a really dumb idea.
As for prison policy you should have a good look at how the Scandinavians do it.
If people are stupid enough to smoke themselves to death via cancer then let them get on with it.
If people are stupid enough to take illegal drugs and eventually harm or kill themselves then let them get on with it.
If people are stupid enough to become obese and shorten their lives then let them get on with it.
I fail to see why I should pay higher prices for a drink because other people can't bahave responsibly.
I'm all for the idea of survival of the fittest with regard to self abuse. If people are too stupid to look after themselves when they really should know better then let them get on with it and don't penalise the rest of us who behave moderately.
It is not my responsibility to wrap those stupid enough to abuse drink, drugs, and food in cotton wool at great expense to myself.
Self reliance and personal responsibility, two concepts that are totally alien to Labour?
Just to say briefly, I've worked in both systems, and the NHS is far superior in terms of expertise and research.(Hence they hire NHS consultants!)I agree with some criticisms you've made- but much of that culture of target setting and running the NHS like a supermarket emanates from the 1980's.Pity we didn't get rid of it.
But I do think there is an unhealthy binge drinking culture on our streets and behind closed doors, that is having a massive effect on young people in particular.
Also- crime statistics.
I wouldn't want to demonize drinkers- more take a realistic approach to the social effects for all of us.
I agree with Amanjit- education is needed, but also shock tactics to get the message across.
And restriction to cheap booze- as you suggested.It's probably a multi pronged approach.
I also think people worry too much about "24 hour drinking". The vast majority of licence extensions were pubs that wanted to stay open an extra hour on Friday & Saturday. It's also now much easier to get a licence review if a pub is causing trouble and local residents can put forward conditions to be applied to the licence.
surely this will not apply to the taxpayer subsidised prices in the bars in the palace of westminster ?
Admittedly, I’m using slightly incendiary language given the site I’m posting on. I’m sure the NHS is full of a lot of dedicated caring people, indeed, my own mother and sister are nurses. But I also know it is full of misaligned targets, petty bureaucrats, capable of horrendous group think and woeful inefficiency. I know a privatised health care system would save a lot more lives for a lot less money . So where I am coming from is the opportunity cost of the lives the NHS does not save.
If in the 1940’s we had elected to have a NFS, National Food Service instead, do you honestly think it would be delivering better food cheaper than the myriad of private providers like Tesco’s or Waitrose? Likewise I dream of the superior healthcare system we could have under full privatisation. You can still use vouchers to provide universal healthcare.
We did. Have you ever heard about the Land Army? Dig for Britain? Food production was nationalised during WWII. It had to be because during the Battle of the Atlantic few ships could bring food to these islands. We had to, and we did, increase food production to make sure that we did not starve.
Your dreams are nightmares, I suggest you stop eating Stilton before you go to bed.
The County War Agricultural Executive Committes were succedded by a system of strong state intervention with subsidy and marketing boards afterwards.
http://www.galaxy.bedfordshire.gov.uk/webingres/bedfordshire/vlib/0.wla/wla_bedfordshire_war_ag_cwaec.htm
Mind you the farmers hated the "war ags", and in the long run the drive for production damaged the countryside, but that's a slightly different issue.
Private sector farming was moribund by the late 30s, with abandoned land common (this was the era when local authorities were buying farms, to try to sustain the sector with low rents) and was unable to feed the country as it stood.
The state-supported sector then after the war produced the cheap food that supplied the first supermarkets.
In many cases the likes of Tesco and to a lesser extent Waitrose have been able to drive down supplier prices and thus invest in their ranges partly because of continuing state support.
Madasa fish- I don't think that would be workable; although obviously anyone attacking anyone should be prosecuted, and severe penalties.
One emergency dept I worked in had a no zero tolerance policy- and breathalized anyone suspected of drinking upon entering.They couldn't return until completely sober.
However, on a wider level, this is not just about a few abusers; there is a social acceptibility of binge drinking that is particularly impacting on the young- and needs addressing fast.
I am surprised about that, and I suspect that it was a bit more complicated than you mention. Not everyone who's been drinking is violent. Refusing treatment could cost lives and I'm sure that no hospital A&E would risk that. For example, I have diabetes, so what happens if I have one drink and have a hypo?
I think 24 hour opening of pubs is crazy.
I suppose if we all had a responsible attitude towards ourselves and society, it wouldn't be such a big problem.
But I think things are reaching epidemic proportions.
Hope to be back later- cheers for now.
Most stay open an extra couple of hours at most until it's not worth keeping the staff on and then shut up shop and go home.
where do you draw the line ?
I specifically said "Anyone who attacks A&E staff loses ALL access to NHS help for say 12 months."
If of course, when you are injured playing a game, then proceed to attack A&E staff: yes.
Please do not mess with what I said: the meaning was obvious ...
Alcohol is just another drug. It costs money to drink. Abusers should be made to pay a lot more. If they are on benefits and consequently starve: tough. It's their choice.
Far too many people think they can escape the consequences of their actions. And they do.. That is one of the biggest issues in this country.
Just look at MPs and expenses. How many thieves have been jailed? None.
Alcoholics are addicts, addiction is a disease. Same with drug addicts. Rationing healthcare should never be used as a punishment.
Anyone who attacks anyone should be tried by the courts, and IMO, violent crime should be custodial. If the violence is through drugs or drink then the treatment for addiction can be given in prison where the addict is guaranteed to attend the treatment sessions.
if we have price controls for beer, why not sweets or chips, they do as much damage in terms of obesity
I suggest you read what I say rather than what you think I have said.
I am no puritan and enjoy alcohol. Asda have lots of great deals just now.
A draconian regime like that would be workable and would teach people the consequences of their action..
Is not going to happen. people do not believe in responsibility for actions least of all MPs.
I think the difference is that people who fall off their bike will not be aggressive (most of them, anyway).
People with a few inside them easily can turn aggressive.
Sorry have to be brief now- back later.
I've spent many an hour dealing with alcoholics and binge drinkers in A+E- and it's degrading.It's probably also taking up disproportionate amounts of time for staff, and putting them at risk in city centres on Fri and Sat nights.(That also includes the police and ambulance staff.)
It's what fuels many crimes on the streets I'd imagine,(and in the home.)
However-politicians seem to have been very reluctant to tackle- as limits to drinking affects the whole population and seen as socially acceptable?
Maybe limits need to be targeted in some way.
However- as Amanjit says- is there has been a successful anti smoking campaign- why not alcohol?!
We have strange double standards in Britain.Whilst on the one hand catigating marijuana use as criminal,(which probably affects the minority,) alcohol is freely available, and advertised as something cool- especially having an effect on young people- much like smoking did.
I think most of us know the Brits abroad have one of the worst reputations abroad for binge drinking- eg stag parties going to Prague etc.This perception and reality has been around for years.
Not something to be celebrated?
It is also interesting that in countries like France- alcohol is part of their normal diet- and generally drunk in moderation as part of their culture.I don't know what percentage of the population there have chronic liver disease?
I'd also be interested to know what the police statistics are about the correlation betweem crime and drinking/drugs? We hear so little of the reality- perhaps it wouldn't be great for the drinks industry?!
I think 24 hour drinking should be BANNED.It's just dramatically worsening the problem.
I think the initial focus should be on education of young people and parents of secondary school children.
There are now much higher frightening statistics of young people dying in the 20's of liver disease.
I agree there needs to be a much more aggressive and proactive approach.After all, we have health promotion around good diet and giving up smoking....and yet such an obviously dangerous habit that also has catastrophic and expensive consequences on society is generally ignored and accepted?!
It is also our culture that needs challenging.We don't need to stop drinking- just moderate it.
I think it is a bit more complicated than restricting licensing hours. We did once have restrictive hours in England, but they really didn't do much good.
When I was a student the pubs opened at 6 and closed at 10.30, so that was 4 1/2 hours drinking time (I preferred Shipstons to Home Ales, both were cheap enough to drink in quantity). a few years later I worked in the Netherlands, when I had my first beer with my Dutch colleagues they looked aghast at how quick I could drink a beer and told me to slow down. I used to work nights there, finishing at 2am most nights, and we would go for a drink afterwards and there was always a bar open somewhere at that time. But I learned to drink like the Dutch: no hurry.
Just think of the meaning of the phrase "Last Orders": it's your last chance lads, and make sure that you drink it in 10 minutes. That is what we teach young adults. They learn to drink quick and they think it is socially acceptable.
With my Dutch mates there was never any pressure to drink fast. If the bar closed then there was always another one that we could go to, but you know what? we usually called it a night. So I drank far less in the Netherlands than I did in England.
I don't think there is any magic policy. Changing licensing hours will take us back to 20 years ago, it won't change much. The only solution is education. Not only of drinkers, but also of publicans. Perhaps if we made pubs responsible for any drunken damage in their vicinity they would be more careful about upholding the law which I believe is the rather odd requirement that they should not sell drink to someone who is drunk. But the most important thing is to make sure that being drunk is no longer socially acceptable. That takes a lot of education and a lot of time.
I’m intrigued. Do you believe that for the poor access to alcohol is an essential civil right?
I wonder what those on the left think of Australia’s benefit basic card. Welfare payments are made to an ‘oyster card’ like debit card, that can only be used to purchase food, energy, clothes and other essentials. But not alcohol, gambling, etc.
I do think that James has a point with the 'Oyster Card' though. Okay so I may be at risk of people shouting civil liberties but if I was stuck in that situatuion it would be good to know I could feed and clothe myself and my family.
yet wants to limit our freedom to drink, one which the vast majority do not abuse
one of the good things labour did was to relax the hours of opening and treat us as adults
yet wants to limit our freedom to drink, one which the vast majority do not abuse"
Right or left wing are deficient terms. He might be economically liberal but socially authoritarian. I class myself as libertarian, and as such would not make illegal drink or even drugs. But then again I not expect the NHS to have to treat you for either, nor would I have the criminal justice system go lightly on anyone who misbehaved under the influence either.
Then again I would privatise the hateful NHS. But, I do hesitate on privatising the army, and justice system, still undecided there.
That's just wrong on so many levels.
That's just wrong on so many levels.
Of course.
"In England, justice is open to all – like the Ritz Hotel."
This is NOT a political issue but a matter of public health and safety.
Millions of people do not smoke but smoking in public places is banned. What is wrong with controlling alcohol abuse?
have you noticed how expensive pubs are ?
the problem are the super markets as the restrictions are far less than a licensee has
BTW -vested interest - member of camra but I support min price.
Mike, in Brum it is miles btter and think when i first started to drink I was not allowed to drink in the afternoon.
that is simply not sensible was it back then ?
for a supposedly mature country
or do we need a nanny state ?
I'm sure you're aware of the percentage of alcohol related cases in A&E.
A&E staff are often attacked by violent drunks.
Simple solutions:
Anyone who attacks A&E staff loses ALL access to NHS help for say 12 months.
Cut pub hours.
Raise alcohol prices.
It will not happen. Words are cheap. Actions work.
The true cost of this vile Policy will be felt for years to come.
More joined up (screwed up) Goverment?!
I remember years ago going to Europe and kids aged 15 and younger were allowed to drink wine with a meal. Funny thing was you never saw them going out and getting hammered.