slinkydevil Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 The Education Minister feels alcohol shouldn't be available from supermarkets, shops and garages, only off-licenses. http://www.manxradio.com/readNEwsItem.aspx?id=15303 My girlfriend is 29 and still gets asked for ID in Tesco's - so what are off-licenses doing that they don't? And an increase in people drinking in their homes - no shit. Pub culture is dying a death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Why do politicians tackle social problems by nibbling round the edges? Instead of tackling the problem head on, they just make life more difficult for the ordinary man in the street who just wants to get on with life. They take the line of least resistance to demonstrate that 'they are doing something' wihout running the risk of a bloody nose, in the political sense, if their brave actions to take direct and effective action fails. Anyone watch Horizon tonight? Interesting assessment by doctors and pyschologists on 20 addictive drugs including cigarettes and booze. Both booze and fags were bigger killers than ecstasy and other class A drugs (LSD has next to no fatalities) and booze is a bigger social menace than many of the harder drugs. (If I remember correctly fags, kill more people than class A drugs, AIDS, suicide and booze combined.) Yet both are still legal substances. Don't get me wrong, I like a drink and have been a smoker for years, bu t I really wish politicians would stop giving soundbites on these issues: if they really are the social and health threats that they are said to be then more direct action is required than just making life difficult for the other law abiding addicts amongst us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 Why do politicians tackle social problems by nibbling round the edges? Instead of tackling the problem head on, they just make life more difficult for the ordinary man in the street who just wants to get on with life. They take the line of least resistance to demonstrate that 'they are doing something' wihout running the risk of a bloody nose, in the political sense, if their brave actions to take direct and effective action fails. Anyone watch Horizon tonight? Interesting assessment by doctors and pyschologists on 20 addictive drugs including cigarettes and booze. Both booze and fags were bigger killers than ecstasy and other class A drugs (LSD has next to no fatalities) and booze is a bigger social menace than many of the harder drugs. (If I remember correctly fags, kill more people than class A drugs, AIDS, suicide and booze combined.) Yet both are still legal substances. Don't get me wrong, I like a drink and have been a smoker for years, bu t I really wish politicians would stop giving soundbites on these issues: if they really are the social and health threats that they are said to be then more direct action is required than just making life difficult for the other law abiding addicts amongst us. I'm a big time libertarian on drug issues, but couldn't those results have been skewed by the simple fact that more people smoke and drink than take acid, ecstasy or other class a substances? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 Probably, which is an even greater argument for a total ban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 Probably, which is an even greater argument for a total ban. Or the legalisation of the other drugs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 Or the legalisation of the other drugs... No, that would take all the fun away........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 The Education Minister feels alcohol shouldn't be available from supermarkets, shops and garages, only off-licenses. Supermarkets, shops and garages that sell alcohol are off-licences, bound by the same rules as stand-alone off-licences in the street, and bound by the same rules for selling alcohol to underage drinkers as any on-licence (pub etc.). The only response by most politicians to most problems today seems to be collective punishment - and yet we collectively let fools like this spin-merchant get into power. She should do what she's paid to do, and tackle the problem by ensuring those already tasked by government to identify off-licences selling alcohol to underage drinkers (wherever they may be) start closing down those that abuse the off-licence regulations, and as education minister look more closely into why some of these kids are seemingly being taught that this is 'normal behaviour' these days. Most of the solutions to this lie in educating children and parents (who let some of these feral scum roam the streets getting drunk at night). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 It's just too easy to blame the off licences/supermarkets. The simple fact is that, no matter how many checks they put in place, there is nothing to prevent someone of legal age obtaining alcohol (or cigarettes for that matter) to supply to someone who is under age. That, i would suggest, is how most of the problem kids obtain what they want - from friends and relatives - but when was the last time that anyone was prosecuted for doing so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 Also kids don't hang around with other kids of exactly the same age. So once the oldest turns 18, they all have access to legally purchased alcohol. I propose that all children be deemed to have been born on 1st January (like racehorses) to address this problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 Probably, which is an even greater argument for a total ban. Or the legalisation of the other drugs... We had a vote on smoking in the workplace. Over 90% voted for a smoking room even though the numbers of smokers was less than 7%. People are generally tolerant which is why the smoking in pubs ban created such a furore. However had the vote been to legalise skunk for example you can guarantee that the results would have shown it to be as popular as a fart in a spacesuit. Which is why smoking and drinking are acceptable and crack isn't. It's called a democracy where the majority quite rightly make the rules. If it wasn't for the power block of the un-elected upper house you would live in one. There have been lots of complaints about pissed-up youngsters. So a politician has got up on her hind legs to appear to be "doing something" about it. Of course, it's all based on anecdotal "evidence" at best. Frankly the notion that offies are better than supermarkets at regulating who they sell booze and fags to is laughable when you think it's actually their only source of income. However if you own an offie then I'll bet Craine is flavour of the month. Mind you she's also "worried" about folks drinking in the privacy of their own home - how pathetic. The islands' finest should be rounding up the drunken scrotes and giving them chinese burns until they confess as to where they got the booze from. Not exactly rocket science is it Mrs Craine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feelslikeitshould Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 Don't get me wrong, I like a drink and have been a smoker for years, bu t I really wish politicians would stop giving soundbites on these issues: if they really are the social and health threats that they are said to be then more direct action is required than just making life difficult for the other law abiding addicts amongst us. How is the problem of underage drinking going to be reduce? It's not even necessarily a case of "there's nothing better to do". I remember when I was 13/14 and started drinking in the park, there were better, warmer places to go but we'd rather get pissed. We bought the alcohol ourselves from the local off licence, how they ever thought a 13 yr old was 18 I'll never know (I get asked for ID now!) and this was back in the days where kids dressed their age and didn't parade around in next to nothing! The only time I got questioned was when I was getting my mates 11yr old brother to help me carry all the bags round the corner. Like it's been pointed out, kids will still get it if thats what they want. I was suprised to see that the police in the UK may be given powers to take alcohol off minors, why has that not always been the case!? They do that here, surely? We used to get ours taken off us all the time by the local bobby on the beat. I think the only thing that's needed here are extra patrols around parks and bus shelters, if they get it confiscated everytime they're out then they're less likely to bother. How busy are the poice until the pubs shut anyway? The only thing I ever see them do is drive around town after 11pm making sure the drunken adults keep the peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryMcCann Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 Should cigarettes also be sold from specialist tobacconists? It would vertainly stop the problem of underage smoking seeing as there aren't any over here. I would wager more underage drinkers buy their booze from specialist off licences than supermarkets anyway. The checkout staff in Tesco/Shoprite do not stand to gain personally from selling booze whereas a shop owner would. Plus the intimidatory nature of a few thirsty teenagers in a shop with a single person manning the tills will be a factor in many a shopkeepers decision to sell. That would be non existent in a supermarket. Yet again a politician talking utter bollocks really Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted February 6, 2008 Author Share Posted February 6, 2008 Should cigarettes also be sold from specialist tobacconists? It would vertainly stop the problem of underage smoking seeing as there aren't any over here. Does anyone remember the Tobacconists in Parliament street in Ramsey years back? I think it was, ironically, where the health food shop is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 I would wager more underage drinkers buy their booze from specialist off licences than supermarkets anyway. The checkout staff in Tesco/Shoprite do not stand to gain personally from selling booze whereas a shop owner would. Plus the intimidatory nature of a few thirsty teenagers in a shop with a single person manning the tills will be a factor in many a shopkeepers decision to sell. That would be non existent in a supermarket. Hear, hear. Perhaps we should be looking to 'normalise' the consumption of alcohol rather than continuing (and obviously ineffective) campaigns to deride it as an activity which serve only to push it underground (into the parks, bus shelters, wherever). In Germany, beer and wine can be purchased at the age of sixteen. Surely, with 'pubs dying a death,' a compromise can be found where people aged over 16 are allowed to drink in pubs? This gives those of that age where they are too old for the youth clubs somewhere to go where their consumption will be, to an extent at least, more controlled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortalpuppet Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 Get Tesco to open a pub, problems solved. Cheap booze for all forcing the brewery out of buisness and allowing tesco to become the Monopoly on the Island. Then we can get on with building that Monorail or Pizza hut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.