Off-licences Only

[sarahc]

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

 

 

Less chance of bumping into your nan at the offy too. Well, not my nan but most nans.

[mollag]

As long as they dont do something daft like give kids the vote at 16 cos some awkward sod could point out that they are banned for reasons of immaturity from drinking in pubs, smoking, buying cigs and even the dreaded firework.

 

Easy , look to the countries of Europe to see how they deal with alcahol and the young cos they dont seem to have the trouble we have.

 

O r we could go the whole hog and prohibit the whole shibang a-la /volstedt act, worked for the Yanks, why not us?

[Gladys]

Apparently, this has been welcomed by the Drug and Alchohol Advisory service. Well yes, they would say that wouldn't they? (Quote of the 20th century with so many applications, thank you Christine)

[Celt]

I get a box off Boddintons beer from Shoprite for under £9. The same 12 cans from my local shop costs £12. However, my local shop is now owned by the Brewery.

 

All i ask is, why does it cost more from the Brewery than Shoprite, yet it comes from the same supplier?

 

Maybe Anne is being pushed by her friends at the Brewery?

 

The day we get rid off the Kerriush mentality maybe the Island can move into the " Freedom to Flourish " were it means the public can have the " Freedom " to choose. Instead of having set prices rammed down our mouths.

 

Anne Craine is talking the same old shoite she normally does. Just like her father, imo.

 

ps; Nice posts byw, Gladys

[*daniel*]

I get a box off Boddintons beer from Shoprite for under £9. The same 12 cans from my local shop costs £12. However, my local shop is now owned by the Brewery.

 

Probably one of two (or two of two) reasons.

 

Either Shoprite buys more at one time

 

And/Or the fact that Shoprite doesn't need to make as much profit from single items so they have a lower price mark-up.

 

And probably combined with other factors, like all there costs and so on...

 

Or maybe they are just greedy twonks, who knows really....

 

 

Probably, which is an even greater argument for a total ban.

Or the legalisation of the other drugs...

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.

 

Maybe your so called democracy isn't that great...the majority quite rightly makes the rules? if 51% of us were rich and 49% were poor then we could make laws quite rightly saying us rich folk don't need to get taxed, we already contribute enough to society with our full time jobs, keeping our economy going, however we should heavily tax the poor as they don't contribute enough, they didn't put as much effort into being successful like us rich folk. Obviously a bit of an unrealistic view but nether the less, fine according to your definition of a democracy. I read a nice quote today, something along the lines of 'a democracy is a good idea, if only we lived in one'.

 

Also "tyranny of the majority". There needs to be specific restrictions when trying to achieve a fair democracy to stop the minorities being abused/restricted/silenced. I think that drinking and smoking are acceptable is because we are told that they are. Big business those industries. As has been mentioned before about the BBC Documentary, Crack was only just worse then alcohol and cigarettes and nowhere near as bad as other drugs, derived as being bad from many tens of years ago. An outdated act that no-one probably has the balls to do a major revision off. Imagine what would happen to someone in parliament who tried to classify alcohol, they would be made the laughing stock.

[Albert Tatlock]

Also "tyranny of the majority". There needs to be specific restrictions when trying to achieve a fair democracy to stop the minorities being abused/restricted/silenced. I think that drinking and smoking are acceptable is because we are told that they are. Big business those industries. As has been mentioned before about the BBC Documentary, Crack was only just worse then alcohol and cigarettes and nowhere near as bad as other drugs, derived as being bad from many tens of years ago. An outdated act that no-one probably has the balls to do a major revision off. Imagine what would happen to someone in parliament who tried to classify alcohol, they would be made the laughing stock.

Though 40 million alcohol drinkers and 10 million smokers (the customers of off-licences) are hardly minorities, and tackling some of these issues through reclassification is a dangerous political route.

 

Why? Compare those figures to the last UK general election where Labour got a total of 9.5 million votes, the Tories 8.7 million votes and the Lib Dems 6 million votes (out of 27 million votes) - a turnout of 61%. Labour were elected with full power with only 22% of the available vote - I would actually call that the "tyranny by the minority". The reality of the current system is that only several hundred thousand voters actually make a real difference in determining the outcome of a UK general election - you only need to look where most of the party's spend most of their campaign money to see that. Piss off enough of that few hundred thousand and you lose any chance of getting elected, come up with the right headlines and you get elected. NuShite realised that 15 years ago after so many defeats, when they dumped the red flag and put on a 'blue and yellow' suit. Reclassifying alcohol, and banning tobacco would mean prohibition, and I can't see any government doing that and staying in power.

 

Blaming the problems we have at the moment on alcohol and coming up with 'collective punishments' is the easy thing to do of course. People are desperate for a solution and are always willing to listen, which is why such drivel always grabs the headlines - far more difficult is to analyse some of the root causes and pay for the solutions to dealing with the problems that have been building up since the 1980s, which is the true remit, and responsibility, of politicians.

 

IMO and experience, young people get into booze because there is sod all else to do, they simply migrate from hanging around the streets at 16/17 into hanging around pubs at 18. This has much to do with the fact their parents (children of the 1980s) experienced much the same path. Children see mum and dad go to the boozer, come back tanked up laughing and joking and having such a great time (or beating the shit out of each other) and follow suit because 'it's normal'. The real difference between the UK and continental Europe is that people on the continent give a shit about each other, are far more self-disciplined and have far more respect for other people and their elders, and don't have to get tanked up to have a good time as there are alternatives provided. In Britain, children since the 1980s, in general, seem to be treated as 'should be not seen and not heard', with very few facilities provided for them outside of school, little education in terms of the alternatives available, and treat every one else as someone to be stomped on or not to be trusted. Britain is also far more closely tied to the USA and its culture and problems than to the European model, much of which is down to British arrogance, racism and laziness in terms of learning other languages e.g. Foreigners are from Europe and speak funny, Americans are from America (and not seen as foreigners). If all people in rip-off Britain have to do is work and pay hefty mortgages and major bills, the best place to be is the boozer or get tanked up or turn to recreational drugs on the settee after a hard days work. The current electoral system is so flawed that all it is doing is failing, whilst encouraging career politicians and sound byte solutions - and no real solutions.

 

The British way of life needs a complete overhaul and politicians need to address the real issues, instead of cocking about with the periphera. This is what Anne Craine should really be talking about, and as Education minister, identifying and doing something about the root causes. If she needs a budget to tackle it e.g. to provide more facilities/additional teaching staff etc. the first thing she should do is explain to Joe Public how much these problems are costing him/her in terms of: health bills, court costs, extra police required etc. and how these problems are projected to get worse. She should also be talking to some of these kids and find out what their real needs are - especially considering she represents us, as well as being the minister currently responsible for the education of our children. In the meantime her 'solutions' simply involve treating kids as a problem that needs to be addressed, instead of the human beings that in a few years will be bringing up their own kids - and voting. The reality is surreal - we are willing to pay over £40 Million for a new prison (god only knows how much in legal/other costs) and yet begrudge a few million to invest in facilities.

 

All Anne Craine is 'doing' at the moment is treading water.

[mollag]

Apparently, this has been welcomed by the Drug and Alchohol Advisory service. Well yes, they would say that wouldn't they? (Quote of the 20th century with so many applications, thank you Christine)

 

 

Please forgive my anality Gladys but the day my cahones dropped was the day with all the fotees of christine and mandy appeared in the People, embeddded for life

 

anyhoo, apols again but i think the quote was from Mandy

[triskelion]

Also "tyranny of the majority". There needs to be specific restrictions when trying to achieve a fair democracy to stop the minorities being abused/restricted/silenced. I think that drinking and smoking are acceptable is because we are told that they are. Big business those industries. As has been mentioned before about the BBC Documentary, Crack was only just worse then alcohol and cigarettes and nowhere near as bad as other drugs, derived as being bad from many tens of years ago. An outdated act that no-one probably has the balls to do a major revision off. Imagine what would happen to someone in parliament who tried to classify alcohol, they would be made the laughing stock.

Though 40 million alcohol drinkers and 10 million smokers (the customers of off-licences) are hardly minorities, and tackling some of these issues through reclassification is a dangerous political route.

 

Why? Compare those figures to the last UK general election where Labour got a total of 9.5 million votes, the Tories 8.7 million votes and the Lib Dems 6 million votes (out of 27 million votes) - a turnout of 61%. Labour were elected with full power with only 22% of the available vote - I would actually call that the "tyranny by the minority". The reality of the current system is that only several hundred thousand voters actually make a real difference in determining the outcome of a UK general election - you only need to look where most of the party's spend most of their campaign money to see that. Piss off enough of that few hundred thousand and you lose any chance of getting elected, come up with the right headlines and you get elected. NuShite realised that 15 years ago after so many defeats, when they dumped the red flag and put on a 'blue and yellow' suit. Reclassifying alcohol, and banning tobacco would mean prohibition, and I can't see any government doing that and staying in power.

 

Blaming the problems we have at the moment on alcohol and coming up with 'collective punishments' is the easy thing to do of course. People are desperate for a solution and are always willing to listen, which is why such drivel always grabs the headlines - far more difficult is to analyse some of the root causes and pay for the solutions to dealing with the problems that have been building up since the 1980s, which is the true remit, and responsibility, of politicians.

 

IMO and experience, young people get into booze because there is sod all else to do, they simply migrate from hanging around the streets at 16/17 into hanging around pubs at 18. This has much to do with the fact their parents (children of the 1980s) experienced much the same path. Children see mum and dad go to the boozer, come back tanked up laughing and joking and having such a great time (or beating the shit out of each other) and follow suit because 'it's normal'. The real difference between the UK and continental Europe is that people on the continent give a shit about each other, are far more self-disciplined and have far more respect for other people and their elders, and don't have to get tanked up to have a good time as there are alternatives provided. In Britain, children since the 1980s, in general, seem to be treated as 'should be not seen and not heard', with very few facilities provided for them outside of school, little education in terms of the alternatives available, and treat every one else as someone to be stomped on or not to be trusted. Britain is also far more closely tied to the USA and its culture and problems than to the European model, much of which is down to British arrogance, racism and laziness in terms of learning other languages e.g. Foreigners are from Europe and speak funny, Americans are from America (and not seen as foreigners). If all people in rip-off Britain have to do is work and pay hefty mortgages and major bills, the best place to be is the boozer or get tanked up or turn to recreational drugs on the settee after a hard days work. The current electoral system is so flawed that all it is doing is failing, whilst encouraging career politicians and sound byte solutions - and no real solutions.

 

The British way of life needs a complete overhaul and politicians need to address the real issues, instead of cocking about with the periphera. This is what Anne Craine should really be talking about, and as Education minister, identifying and doing something about the root causes. If she needs a budget to tackle it e.g. to provide more facilities/additional teaching staff etc. the first thing she should do is explain to Joe Public how much these problems are costing him/her in terms of: health bills, court costs, extra police required etc. and how these problems are projected to get worse. She should also be talking to some of these kids and find out what their real needs are - especially considering she represents us, as well as being the minister currently responsible for the education of our children. In the meantime her 'solutions' simply involve treating kids as a problem that needs to be addressed, instead of the human beings that in a few years will be bringing up their own kids - and voting. The reality is surreal - we are willing to pay over £40 Million for a new prison (god only knows how much in legal/other costs) and yet begrudge a few million to invest in facilities.

 

All Anne Craine is 'doing' at the moment is treading water.

This is mostly a load of self-serving twoddle. Firstly, the British are no more arrogant, racist or lazy than any other European country, and probably less so in a lot of cases. The current electoral system may have its flaws, but it is hardly anyone's fault but the electorate's that so few turn out. It is not like alternative structures are much better, and forced voting does nothing to increase the credibility of an elected Government. Saying we much closer to America culturally than we are to the 'continent' (despite Europe not being a continent and not having a single culture) is a non-point as culturally we are all rather similar, and most European countries have closer cultural ties to the US than they do to other European states, because America controls so much of the media.

 

Your continous, dogmatic insistence that Britain's problems began in the 1980s does not stand up to any kind of examination.

 

You also bring in the 'lack of alternatives' to drinking/drugs etc. There are many, many alternatives, however teenagers are a cussed lot and frankly there is very little they do want to do. There is more than enough to occupy them on the Island. What is it that people in Europe get up to all the time? You are seriously over-romaticising it.

 

Young people always seem like reckless, irresponsible trouble-makers to the older generation. It is a complete fallacy to suggest that if there was something else to do, they would be doing it. Firstly because there is plenty else to do, and secondly, because most young people drink and take drugs because they enjoy it. They are all too aware of the harmful impacts it can have, but they instinctively feel invincible at that age, which is something you can do very little about.

 

Since prohibition won't and doesn't work, and given that people will consume these things anyway, regardless of the volumous amount of warnings about them, the sensible approach is to encourage more intelligent consumption. You complain, Albert, that these days children are prefered to be 'seen but not heard,' (yeah, that's a real new idea) then surely the best way forward is to give them the means to make an informed choice between getting lashed and consuming illegal drugs or using their money and time to do something somewhat more productive.

[The Voice of Reason]

IMO and experience, young people get into booze because there is sod all else to do, they simply migrate from hanging around the streets at 16/17 into hanging around pubs at 18. This has much to do with the fact their parents (children of the 1980s) experienced much the same path. Children see mum and dad go to the boozer, come back tanked up laughing and joking and having such a great time (or beating the shit out of each other) and follow suit because 'it's normal'. The real difference between the UK and continental Europe is that people on the continent give a shit about each other, are far more self-disciplined and have far more respect for other people and their elders, and don't have to get tanked up to have a good time as there are alternatives provided.

 

This is nonsense. I'm a bit fed up with all this we Brits are crap, our European neighbours are great. I think you'll find, for example, that football hooliganism is more rife and intense in many European countries than in the UK. If we must put ourselves down all the time at least don't pretend that everything is rosy the other side of the Channel. What exactly are these "alternatives provided" in continental Europe that make our neighbours more self disciplined and have far more respect for other people and their elders?

I'd love to know, then we can provide them for ourselves and all social ills will dissapear

[*daniel*]

Also "tyranny of the majority". There needs to be specific restrictions when trying to achieve a fair democracy to stop the minorities being abused/restricted/silenced. I think that drinking and smoking are acceptable is because we are told that they are. Big business those industries. As has been mentioned before about the BBC Documentary, Crack was only just worse then alcohol and cigarettes and nowhere near as bad as other drugs, derived as being bad from many tens of years ago. An outdated act that no-one probably has the balls to do a major revision off. Imagine what would happen to someone in parliament who tried to classify alcohol, they would be made the laughing stock.

Though 40 million alcohol drinkers and 10 million smokers (the customers of off-licences) are hardly minorities, and tackling some of these issues through reclassification is a dangerous political route.

 

What I was trying to get across was how P.K was putting across that the majority find alcohol and cigarettes acceptable and find other certain drugs completely unacceptable. I was talking about the minority of those who insist of taking other drugs that studies show are less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco and yet the majority have come to a way of thinking that these less dangerous drugs are EVIL and alcohol and tobacco are just fine.

 

I just felt like a bit of a rant really to put out there that P.K definition of democracy "where the majority quite rightly make the rules" is a bit of nonsense.

[P.K.]

What I was trying to get across was how P.K was putting across that the majority find alcohol and cigarettes acceptable and find other certain drugs completely unacceptable. I was talking about the minority of those who insist of taking other drugs that studies show are less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco and yet the majority have come to a way of thinking that these less dangerous drugs are EVIL and alcohol and tobacco are just fine.

 

I just felt like a bit of a rant really to put out there that P.K definition of democracy "where the majority quite rightly make the rules" is a bit of nonsense.

Exactly what part of "the majority find alcohol and cigarettes acceptable and find other certain drugs completely unacceptable" is it that you don't understand? Also the majority don't think that other drugs are evil and alcohol and tobacco are somehow just fine i.e. you're talking complete and utter bollocks. We ALL know smoking kills and we ALL know that alcohol can kill as well - cue George Best. But the majority who vote in our law-makers are prepared to live with that but pretty much no further i.e. the majority don't care what this and that study says about other drugs, we don't want them legalised. If you don't like living in our democracy then vote with your feet. End of. I would also be wary of comparisons with the US where the legal age of alcohol purchase is 21 and it's rigidly enforced.

 

Craine is still pathetic though.

[thebees]

Silly cow!

[Gladys]

Apparently, this has been welcomed by the Drug and Alchohol Advisory service. Well yes, they would say that wouldn't they? (Quote of the 20th century with so many applications, thank you Christine)

 

 

Please forgive my anality Gladys but the day my cahones dropped was the day with all the fotees of christine and mandy appeared in the People, embeddded for life

 

anyhoo, apols again but i think the quote was from Mandy

Anality fogiven, and many thanks for the correction!

 

(P.S. Hope you didn't break your cahones; must have been a notable accident if you can remember the day!)

[Albert Tatlock]

This is mostly a load of self-serving twoddle. Firstly, the British are no more arrogant, racist or lazy than any other European country, and probably less so in a lot of cases.

Having lived on the continent for a few years I whole heartedly disagree. The vast majority of Brits don't speak a second language compared to the far larger percentage of the population on the european continent that do. Most Brits experience of Europe is a holiday in Spain or France. Pissed up 'Brits on tour' has been the experience of many a foreigner.

The current electoral system may have its flaws, but it is hardly anyone's fault but the electorate's that so few turn out. It is not like alternative structures are much better, and forced voting does nothing to increase the credibility of an elected Government.

Of course it's 'someones' fault - it's the fault of every UK politician past and present. Why bother to vote at all in constituencies where if a pig was painted blue or red it would get voted in? Many people are dissafected by the current electoral system and simply don't bother to vote anymore.

Saying we much closer to America culturally than we are to the 'continent' (despite Europe not being a continent and not having a single culture) is a non-point as culturally we are all rather similar, and most European countries have closer cultural ties to the US than they do to other European states, because America controls so much of the media.

Gun crime/Knife crime and their 'me me me' culture? They don't give a stuff about the poor, sick and unhealthy. Are you seriously saying the US is a role model?

Your continous, dogmatic insistence that Britain's problems began in the 1980s does not stand up to any kind of examination.

In terms of alcohol - the problems of en masse excess alcohol bingeing began in the 1980s. Read this for starters.

You complain, Albert, that these days children are prefered to be 'seen but not heard,' (yeah, that's a real new idea) then surely the best way forward is to give them the means to make an informed choice between getting lashed and consuming illegal drugs or using their money and time to do something somewhat more productive.

I specifically said 'not seen and not heard' - the difference being they are talked about by politicians as though they are 'out of the room', and not treated as human beings in terms of a solution. I firmly believe that facilities (e.g. properly funded youth centres) will make a significant difference.

 

 

Get your NuShite head out of the sand. People need solutions, not more of the same old clap trap and excuses.

[The Voice of Reason]

Not speaking a second language makes one arrogant, lazy and racist, eh how does that work?

 

You'd never get a "pisssed up" Frenchman or Spaniard would you? Oh no siree