It gets better!
So booze doesn't only make you a witty conversational genius with superpowers who's magnetically attractive to women, it also makes you successful too?
I'll have to do something positive about my career prospects later.
Figures from the Office of National Statistics show that despite what the government keeps telling us we are not a nation of drunks, and people with manual or routine jobs actually drink less than those with professional or managerial ones. Not only that, but average alcohol consumption is also falling. In 2006 the average …
Not how much you drink.
The basic problem seems to be the anti-social behaviour. Although this might itself be a symptom of the trend that britian has to becoming a far more intolerant society (after all, political correctness is just another phrase for intolerance. I have a suspicion that if all the chavs got drunk, fell over and slept it off - without harming anyone, or anything else the problem would be seen as much less important. As it is, the hysterical press promotes the image of drunks goings around, smashing up town centres, puking everywhere and beating up anyone they find. Now, while this is only the rantings of the gutter press (who are experts on drunk behaviour, themselves), the image sticks. It's the perception that is the problem much more than the actuality. If there were just piles of people propped up in doorways, snoring drunkenly then apart from the tutting or the puritanical busybodies, there'd be no story.
What this piece of statistical outpouring does tell us though, is that using price as a means of controlling consumption is flawed. The rich will still be able to afford to get rat-assed, while the poor can only stand in the pub (or supermarket) doorway and look thirsty. So much for social equality So anyone who claims to be restricting booze "for our own good" can be shown to be talking rubbish.
BTW: a lot of the same arguments can be applied to other drugs apart from C2H5OH, too.
"Yesterday, Public Health Minister, Gillian Merron, launched the 'Alcohol Effects' campaign with three leading health charities - the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK and the Stroke Association. This campaign highlights the unseen damage that can be caused by regularly drinking more than Government Ministers do."
The "21 units per week for men, 14 for women" figures have been revealed as being plucked out of the air without any medical foundation. The concept of "binge drinking" was only introduced to discourage people from drinking their weekly "limit" in one go, and the bar (no pun intended) keeps getting lowered.
In reality, there is no blanket "safe" limit. But a succession of puritanical governments push this lie because they view the public as an exploitable resource for their business mates.
Three simple steps:
1) Re-hire David Nutt.
2) Outlaw alcohol.
3) Legalise cannabis.
There has never, *IN THE RECORDED HISTORY OF MANKIND* been a *single* reported death directly related to the use of cannabis. Not one.
Prove otherwise. I'll give you some time for that.
Not sure if it's necessary to outlaw alcohol -- just put it on an equal footing with the rest of drugs for once.
There are so many words in our language for someone who is more than partial to alcohol but none of them are 'addict'. It's the legalised addition to booze that makes it easy to use words that don't place it with the 'bad' drugs. It's an addiction that causes so much damage and cost yet this is sort of excused away because it is legal and somehow there are no alcohol addicts.
If we started by getting rid of the misleading phrase 'drugs and alcohol' and got the masses to realise drugs is drugs then number three would be simple.
It also means keeping alcohol in the revenue stream but - as history has shown - there would be fierce lobbying by those who know how much they would lose by having thier current legalised addicts weaning off on to other, less addictive, drugs.
We like our drugs - let's just recognise them all for what they are.
If drinking is in decline, then the Booze Tax running total will be smaller each year. So the Booze Tax will need to increase proportionately to cover it. I assume that's why they've been raising it each year (and hitting harder on the cigs).
I feel sorry for the last person to give up smoking - he/she'll be paying the entire tax bill on their own! Thank God that Simon Cowell's a smoker...
Am I alone in wondering how much of that rise in deaths is simply changes in diagnosis and the increase imaginary? There seems to be nothing some teetotal shit of a doctor can't somehow link to alcohol whenever invited to comment and a campaign to push the lie is well underway.
I'm also finding the endless attempts to report on increasing alcohol related crime comically inept. Sure, my local hospital seems to have an endless line of staff willing to agree with the claim. Those problem drinkers must all be drinking at the hospital, the pubs and clubs have been empty all year!
And don't start me on 24 hour drinking and the chaos its (supposedly) caused. I'm still trying to work out why I count 2 hours LESS opening time on my circuit, or where to find a drink 24 hours a day. Pubs all asked for extended hours simply to avoid the nightmare getting extensions for special events has become, the teetotallers like to gloss over pubs not actually opening for the longer hours they're licensed for :(
"Drinking more than eight units in a session, if you're male, or six if female, counts as heavy drinking."
8 units is less than 3 pints of 5% lager (roughly 8.6 units IIRC) or 4 double spirits (8.5 units at 40%). Who here considers 3 pints or 4 whiskies in an evening to be "heavy drinking"?
*lol* Nice.. But you cant say that was a direct result of cannabis.
Stupidity yes, cannabis no.. and it does even sound like they were that stoned.
"After smoking marijuana and liquoring themselves"
So they were drunk, which it probably more of a reason they were acting the way they were.
"The energetic gyrations of the dancers"
Energetic is not a word a would use to decribe someone who is stoned.
If you factored in the recent growth in the % of the population who practice a religion which bans the consumption of alcohol against the recent fall in average alcohol consumption, I doubt you would find much has changed amongst the % who do drink.
If you are poor you have a stark choice: pissing your money away on fags and alcohol or spending the money to raise another child. One choice will prove to be more productive in the end.
that is the traditional place to put money, but because of the Labour party and their bizarre short sighted and one eyed approach to totalitarian control, the pubs and off-licences are closing so they lose that taxation revenue stream.
People still smoke and consume more alcohol in a recession, but no one ever admits to it, because it gets recorded by the Stazi doctoring lot. And, even though they get paid by the people they are megalomaniacs who believe their insane thinking is right and should be enforced on others. Doctors still die don't they, still contract illness and well cannot heal themselves let alone others.
Leave them to it, and if you can do things to reduce your tax burden then you really should, it will hasten their demise. Labour and the Doctors all know it is not about helping society it is about how much they can take from it, the least amount of tax revenue given to them the better for liberty and life.
The UK economy will not recover until Labour is out, and, even then, only if the Conservatives cut public spending and services, and remove some of the labour laws or there is a hung parliament and they just spend their time trying to deal with each other and leave the rest of us alone.
Alcohol and smoking is not that bad for you, there are many social advantages to them as well, and if we are to be honest it is oil burning vehicles that are far more carcinogenic, and oxygen itself is carcinogenic.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019